UBRARY OF CONGRESS 




0DDDS754^Sa 



>6^ 
















.'*^^^\<^ 











i' 



^„^*' 















5-' 







o «o 




• Ii 
















•••^"Oo />•"-'♦ 






^aX« \ . 


















•* <^^* 


















:.^^ 



^•<s 



♦ o 




)S^^^ 




^-^0^ 









































9^ 











<^'' .i *- "^j. -d^ o«"* 












p «« 



o 



IV 



fe*. **. A* ♦'i.V/A*' *«« .^''►* - 



"^ A 



♦ 



THE 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE: 



OR 



ANSWERS 



TO 



MESSRS. BURaES, DUER, AND MACKENZIE. 



BY J. FENIMORE COOPER. 



7 



COOPERSTOWN, 

H.& E. PHINNEY. 



1843. 



:t 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1843, by 

J. FENIMORE COOPER, 

in the office of the Clerk of the District Court of the United States in 

and for the northern district of New York- 



PREFACE. 

In his biography of Perry, Graham's Maga- 
zine, for May and June, 1843, the writer has 
given his theory of the Battle of Lake Erie, as 
connected with the controversy that has risen out 
of it. In the Naval history, that controversy was 
purposely avoided, as unnecessary to, and unfit 
for such a work. In this pamphlet, the intention 
is merely to answer Messrs. Burges, Duer and 
Mackenzie, all three of whom comment on, and 
the two last of whom have openly attacked the 
writer. 

The writer has not sought this discussion. It 
has been forced on him by his assailants, who 
must now face the consequences. For years the 
writer has submitted in comparative silence to a 
gross injustice, in connection with this matter, not 
from any want of confidence in the justice of his 
case or any ability to defend himself, but, because 
he * bided his time,' knowing, when that should 
arrive, he had truth to fall back upon. He 



iv PREFACE. 

has seen his own work condemned, and, so far 
as the public authorities were concerned, excluded 
from the District School Libraries, and all on ac- 
count of its supposed frauds in relation to the 
Battle of Lake Erie ; while, on the other hand, 
he has heard Capt. Mackenzie's Biography of 
Perry lauded from one end of the Union to the 
other, and preferred to that place in the libraries 
mentioned, from which his own work has been 
excluded. The day of reckoning has come at 
length, and the judgment of men will infallibly 
follow. For the issue, the writer has no fears. 
Let intelligent men do him the justice to read, 
and honest men the justice to decide ; this is all 

he asks, or desires. 

J. FENIMORE COOPER. 

Cooperstowriy May^ \Qth^ 1843. 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 



Shortly after the appearance of the history of the Navy 
of the United States, bitter and conjbined attacks were 
made on it, principally in connection with the authenticity 
of its statements concerning the battle of lake Erie. All 
of these attacks proceeded, so far as I have been able to 
ascertain, from the friends or connections of the late Com. 
Perry. It had suited that officer in 1818, to withdraw the 
eulogium he had bestowed on the conduct of Capt. Elliott, 
in his official account of 1813, and to substitute in its place, 
charo^es against his late second in command accusing him, 
in substance, of either cowardice or treachery, and asking 
for a court to investigate the facts. Although the govern- 
ment has never acted on these charges, it is matter of noto- 
riety that they have given rise to several distinct contro- 
versies, of which it is to be hoped that the present will be 
the last. A brief narrative of the history of these contro- 
versies will assist the reader in better understanding the 
subject. 

The battk of Lake l'>rie was remarkable for a feature 
that is almost, if not entirely, without example in the annals 
of naval combats Although fhe Americans eventually 
captured every English vessel engaged against them, 
their own commanding ship struck her colors. This 
circumstance naturally gave rise to some feeling, and it is 
in proof that certain of the officers of this vessel were 
early engaged in looking up evidence to criminate Capt. 
Elliott, to whose conduct they ascribed their own disaster. 
Capt. Perry had brought with him from Rhode Island, 
several officers, natives of that state, or young men who had 
commenced their naval career under his immediate auspi- 
1* 



O BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE, 

ces, while in command of the flotilla on that coast. These 
gentlemen, without an exception I believe, took sides with 
their chief, in the subsequent dispute, and the earliest evi- 
dence I can find of any thing like a disposition to arraign 
Capt. Elliott, is connected with one of these officers. Dr. 
Usher Parsons, then a surgeon's mate on board the Law- 
rence, the vessel originally commanded by Capt. Perry, 
and which struck to the enemy after he had left to go on 
board the Niagara, Capt. Elliott, went to the latter vessel 
" the second day aftej- the action"^to dress the wounds ; her 
own surgeon Di\ Barton being too ill at the time to attend 
to the duty. On this occasion Dr. Parsons, agreeably to 
his own statement, questioned some of the wounded men 
as to the time when they were hurt — whether it were be- 
fore, or after Capt. Perry reached their bris^. As it has 
been alleged that Capf. Elliott betrayed a consciousness 
of guilt, by his moving so early in the matter, this cir- 
cumstance becomes of some importance, since no act of 
Capt. Elliott's, in connection with the imputation on his 
conduct, is proved to have taken place at a date earlier 
than Sept. 17, or a week after the battle. 

It is thus substantially shown that the enemies of Capt. 
Elliott, first took ground in this controversy ; or, at least, 
it is not proved, as has been asserted, that Capt. Elliot did. 
On this occasion, several letters were written, by different 
officers, principally if not all of the Niagara, in justifica- 
tion of the conduct of Capt. Elliott, most of which appeared 
in the journals of the vicinity of Lake Erie. Capt. Perry 
took no part against his subordinate, but, on the contrary, 
in answer to an application from Capt. Elliott, he wrote 
that officer a letter of the date of Sept. 18th, the battle having 
been fought on the 10th, expressing his indignation that 
any rumors to his prejudice should have been in circula- 
tion. There is no reason to think that Capt. Perry, at 
that time, gave any other opinion in public. This may be 
termed the first controversy, though, on the part of the ene- 
mies of Capt. Elliott, little was openly promulgated to the 
world. In a short time, with the exception of a few on the 
spot, the matter was in a great degree forgotten. 

In 1815, however, the papers of this country published 
the sentence of the Court Martial which had sat on Capt. 



BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 7 

Barclay, his officers and crew, for the defeat. Owing to 
the carlessness with wliich statements are made in the 
journals of this country, some observations from a London 
print, that accompanied the finding of the court, were pub- 
lished as forming part of the sentence, which observations, 
among other errors and loose statements, asserted that the 
Niagara "had not been engaged," and "was making 
away," vvhen Capt. Perry reached her. A Court of In- 
quiry was sitting in the Harbor of New York, when this 
supposed statement of tlie British court first appeared in 
America, and Capt. Elliott immediately asked that the facts 
miofht be investioated. This was done, such witnesses 
being made use of, as the vessels present at New York, a 
considerable force, could furnish. Seven witnesses were 
examined, two of the lieutenants of the Lawrence, and five 
officers of the Niagara; the result being an honorable ac- 
quittal of Capt. Elliott. Tbe evidence before this court 
was conflicting, both as to distances and as to time, but all 
united in saying that the Niagara at no time was "making 
away." 

From 1815 to 1818, nothing public appears to have oc- 
curred, in connection with this aftair. In the latter year, 
however, Capt. Elliott wrote to Capt. Perry, stating that he 
had been informed that the latter had condemned his con- 
duct on the 10th Sept. 1813, and requiring explanations* 
By the correspondence which ensued, it would seem that 
the gentlemen materially distrusted each others account of 
their respective behavior in the battle. In this correspond- 
ence Capt. Elliott challenged Capt. Perry, and was told, 
in answer, that the latter had prepared charges against 
him, requesting a court for his trial. These charges ap- 
pear to have been sent, accompanied by a letter to the 
Secretary of the date of x4.ugust 10th 1818. Along with 
the charges there appeal's, also, to have been forwarded 
affidavits, criminating Capt. Elliott, and signed by Messrs. 
Parsons, Breese, and Taylor, formerly of the Lawrence^ 
Mr. Turner, commander of the Caledonia, Mr. Stevens, 
commander of the Trippe, Mr. Champlin, commander of 
the Scorpion, and Mr. Brownell of the Ariel; all of which 
were vessels entraffed in the action. Of these witnesses, 
it may be well to say, that Messrs. Parsons, Breese, Tay- 



8 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 

lor, Champliii and Brownell, all appear to have been 
natives of Rhode Island, and to have accompanied Capt. 
Perry when he left that state ; and Mr. Turner, though a 
nativR of New York, had been a resident of Rhode Island 
from childhood, and was almost identified with the family 
of Perry by long and intimate association. Mr. Stevens 
was a native of Carolina, and had no other connection with 
his commander than grew out of his ordinary service ; 
though it is known that he quitted Capt. Klliott's brig a 
few days before t!io battle, on account of a misunderstand- 
ing, and that he subsequently believed that his own name 
was left out of the official account of the action, in conse- 
quence of the representations of the latter. Mr. Champlin, 
I am told, is a relation of Commodore Perry's widow. — 
These facts are not mentioned with a design to impute 
intentional mistatements to any of the witnesses, though 
every man in the least acquainted with human nature, 
must see that, in a question of opinions, circumstances of 
this sort may very well inHuence the mind, without the 
party himself being conscious by what his judgment is 
swayed. When it is seen, as I shall presently show, that 
one of the controversialists, Mr. Tristam Burges, modestly 
claims the Baltic of Lake Erie "as a part of the maritime 
affairs of Rhode Island,"* the fact obtains peculiar signifi- 
cance. One thing is certain ; no officer out of the Lnw- 
rence, Mr. Stevens excepted, is found to give testimony 
against Capt. Elliott, unless a native, or a resident of that 
State, and more th m usually connected with his com- 
mander. 

The government did not act on Captain Perry's charg- 
es. Two stories are in circulation concerning their fate. 
According to one, the Secretary being absent, these charges 
were sent to the President, who immediately consulted 
Com. Decatur on the subject. Com. Decatur was an in- 
timate friend of Capt. Perry's, and he is said to have depre- 
cated the course of the latter, and to have begged the charg- 
es, in order to gain tmie to advise his friend to abandon 
a course which brought him so obviously in contradiction 
with himself. The request was granted, and the charges 
slumbered in Com. Decatur's keeping, until that officer's 
death. This statement is denied, on the other hand. It 



* See Burg^ea's Lectures, Preface page 5 



BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 9 

is said that the charges never were withdrawn by any one, 
though it is admitted that nothing official was ever done 
with them. That Capt Perry, on quitting the country m 
his last cruise, left copies of his charges, with the accom- 
paning affidavits, in Com. Decatur's keeping, to repel any 
attack that might proceed from Capt. Elliott in his absence, 
and that these copies were in the hands of Com. Decatur, 
at his death. The diffi^rence is not very material, and it is 
quite possible that both statements may be true. It seems 
to be certain that Capt. Perry directed such copies to be 
transmitted to Com. Decatur for the purpose declared, and 
it is by no means improbable that Decatur may have 
thought it wisest to conceal his previous possession of the 
originals. Of the truth, I profess to know no more. 

In the unfortunate meeting when Com. Decatur fell, 
Capt. Elliott acted as the friend of Com. Barron. This 
occurred in March, 1820. Perry had died in August, 
1819. Among the papers of Decatur were found the orig- 
inal charges of Perry, against Capt. Elliott, or their copies, 
or both, as the case mav have been, together with the af- 
fidavits. A iQ\y months later, when time had been given to 
examine the papers, these charges and affidavits were 
first laid before the world, by a private publication at Wash- 
ington, in consequence of his connection with the recent 
duel, as is affirmed by Com. Elliott. Of this fact, 1 pro- 
fess to know nothing, beyond the manner of the publica- 
tion. This appeal to the public brought replies ; new 
questions first appeared in the affidavits, and rebutting tes- 
timony was obtained by Capt. Elliott to meet the new 
char<ies. Nearly all the testimony which has appeared in 
the case, that had not been brought out in the discussion 
of 1813, or the court of 1815, seems to have been pro- 
duced in 1820—21, either in the affidavits accompanying 
the charges, or in the letters or affidavits that succeeded 
their publication. 

The subject attracted a good deal of attention in the 
naval circles, in 1821, but did not penetrate the public 
mind. It soon died away, and may be said to have lain 
dormant until it was revived, in 1834, in consequence of 
the afi'air of the figure head. The assault on Capt. El- 
liott, at that time, was a political attack, that was charac- 



10 BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 

terized by the malignancy, disregard of principle, and of 
any thing else but the end in view, which are usual on 
such occasions. It dragged into notice all the testimony 
that could be collected against that gentleman, keeping 
out of sight, with sedulous care, every thing that had been 
advanced in his favor. It was an attack marked by prof- 
ligacy, and in the main sustained by political hacks. With 
the historian, it ought not to weigh a feather. I am not 
aware, that any personal friend of the late Com Perry 
had any agency in this rally of 1834. One of its effects, 
however, was to produce a biography of Com. Elliott, 
which made its appearance in 1835. 

The biography of Com. Elliott is a work of considera- 
ble ingenuity, but I am far from subscribing to all its con- 
clusions. It is the reasoning of a lawyer, rather than of a 
seaman, and is written too much in the feeling of partisan- 
ship not to be obnoxious to criticism. Still it is infinitely 
fairer in spirit, more logical, and everyway more lespect- 
able, than either of the works to which it is my duty now 
to reply. It has one merit, that is altogether wanting to 
my adversaries ; it puts both sides of the question fairly 
before the reader, giving the testimony of both sides, and 
leaving its own reasoning exposed to the just inferences of 
the hostile evidence. This simple and manly course is im- 
itated by none of those who have assailed Capt. Elliott. 
The last have had the hardihood to suppose the public 
might be hoodwinked in an affair of this importance, and 
have in eflfect given the testimony of only, their own side 
of the case. 

My own work was published in the spring of 1839. The 
part which relates to the Battle of Lake Erie, was written i 
after a long and critical examination of all the evidence I I 
could obtain, and with a firm conviction that the contro- 5 
versy that had grown up out of it, was not in a fit state to 
pass into history. This was all I had to decide, and hav- 
ing made up my mind to this one fact, all I had to do was 
to follow the official account, and to give to the world those 
statements which I believed to be true, while I avoided 
touching on any that I thought would admit of doubt. This 
course was rigidly followed, and it is now my task to jus- 
tify what I have done, while I expose the errors, to use a 
mild term, of those who have gainsay ed it. 



BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 11 

The first attack on the History was made by an'^article 
in the Commercial Adv ertiser, which ran through four num- 
bers, and for which, as it contained gross personal imputa- 
tions, I prosecuted the editor for a Hbeh It is now under- 
stood that this article was written by Mr. William A. Duer, 
late President of Columbia College. 

A review in the North American followed, which assailed 
the account of the Battle of Lake Erie, making it a partic- 
ular charge against the historian that he did not distinctly 
state that the English squadron was superior in force to the 
American, because the former carried 63 and the latter on- 
ly 54 guns. As this article has been admitted to be the 
work of Capt. Slidell Mackenzie, of the Navy, it becomes 
identified, in a great degree, with the subsequent labors of 
the same gentleman, on this subject. 

A lecture delivered before the Historical Society of Rhode 
Island, by Mr. Tristam Burges, followed up the blow. 
This lecture had been delivered some time previously, and 
of course contained jio direct allusion to the History ; but it 
was given to the world with loud announcements of the 
withering effect it was to produce on that History, and, 
when published, its logic, facts and diagrams were virtual- 
ly proclaimed to be unanswerable ; more especially by the 
New-York American, New-York Commercial Advertiser, 
and one or two others of characters too questionable, and 
of reasoning powers too feeble to require naming. It now 
remains to see how far these etilo^iums were merited. Not 
satisfied with these attacks and replies, some of which had 
a specific gravity, that aided in producing their own fall, 
Capt. Mackenzie made a fresh assault, in a work called a 
Biography of Com. Perry. This book, he avows in the 
preface, was written at the request of some of Com. Per- 
ry's friends, as an answer to my attempts to lessen the fame 
of that distinguished officer. I greatly regret that such 
an answer to any such imaginary attempts on my part, 
should have been made, for it compels me to expose facts 
I would willingly suppress, and I entertain no doubt that 
the friends of Com. Perry will regret it still more, by the 
time the subject is finally disposed of. 

It may be well, here, to inquire into the situations of 
the difterent individuals who have thus been the agents 



12 BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 

of an attempt to bring me and my labors into disrepute with 
the nation. Mr. B urges is tolerably innocent as respects 
me, his lecture having been written pretty much to prove 
that the Battle of Lake Erie was " a part of the maritime 
affairs of Rhode Island." As my history has no such ob- 
ject in view, it is not surprising that our accounts conflict a 
little. This difference compels me ta justify my own, by 
demonstrating the value of those of the other side. Per- 
sonally, I know nothing to influence Mr. Burges but the 
circumstance that he was a Rhode Island man, and that he 
had given himself so diflScult a task. 

Mr. Duer is nearly a stranger to me. His article was 
written with pecuUar mahgnancy, and is marked by state- 
ments, misquotations and general features, that v ill compel 
me to put such a brand on it, that the ex-president will not 
be desirous of claiming his offspring hereafter. Some per- 
sons may think it pertinent if I add that Mr. Duer is 
Mr. Mackenzie's uncle by marriage. 

The agency of Capt. Mackenzie in tliis affair is probably 
to be imputed to his connection with the family of Perry, 
the present Com. M. C. Perry having married his sister. 
How far such a circumstance would be likely to influence 
this accurate and logical Historian, would depend on his 
character, as connected with his general sense of right; 
and I shall leave the reader to draw his own inferences, 
after the testimony which will bear on this gentleman's 
manner of deahng with facts, shall be laid fairly before 
him. 

First, then, in reply to the lecture of Mr. Purges : It 
is to be presumed that the State of Rhode Island will not 
defend the literary merit of this very extraordinary produc- 
tion, of which the very first sentence is so peculiar, that it 
is welcome to appropriate it to itself also. " It is the pur- 
pose of the present lecture," commences Mr. Burges ** to 
give a concise narrative of the fleet and battle on Lake 
Erie." What is meant by a " narrative of a fleet," I am un- 
able to say, but, as large portions of the explanations of 
this lecture are utterly unintelligible, it is fair to suppose 
they refer to this particular branch of the subject. But 
passing over the poetry of the lecture, which is far from 
inconsiderable in quantity, and leaving the enigma to be 



BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 13 

examined as they may arise, let us proceed at once to the 
material points. I object to Mr. B urges — 

1st. That he assumes general facts in direct opposition 
to known truths ; 

2. That his witnesses, according to his own shovAdng, 
contradict each other, on important points ; 

3d. That he sometimes contradicts his own witnesses. 

4th. That his statements are often opposed to the known 
laws of nature ; and that they inv^olve gross physical im- 
possibilities. 

If all this be shown, it is fair to presume that the rest of 
the repubhc will be ready to inform the State of Rhode 
Island, that it is welcome to its Lecturer, whatever be the 
case as it respects its claims to the victory of Lake Erie. 

In his opening remarks, Mr. Burges has the following 
statements, all of which are opposed to known truths : — 

He says^ — " in the summer of 1812, Oliver Hazard Per- 
ry, of Rhode Island, a young man. Captain in the United 
States Navy, ifcc." Perry was not made a captain until 
after the battle of Lake Erie, his commission being dated 
Sept. 10th 1813, the day of his victory. 

He says, " In the winter of 1812-13 he, (Perry) was or- 
dered to Lake Erie, to take the command, and provide a 
fleet for that station." This is said in a connection which 
means that this order was given to Perry, previously to 
joining the Lake station, at all. It is an error ; Com. 
Chauncey assigning the duty on which Perry was sent. 

He says, " The enemy had then (when Perry was sent 
to Lake Erie) in those waters, two ships, two brigs, &c." 
It is well known that one of the ships, of a force equalling 
all the rest of the British vessels, was not ready, or launch- 
ed, until a short time previously to the battle. 

He says, " The British had, hy land^ as well as by wa- 
ter, the entire command of that lake, (Erie)" &c. This 
is notoriously untrue, the enemy never having command 
of the south shore of Lake Erie, with the exception of a 
temporary possession of a portion near the west end. If 
true. Perry equipped his squadron in what was virtually an 
enemy's country ! 

He says, " Every Yankee is an 'axe-man ; and all the 
companions of Perry were of the full blood ; and the most 
2 



14 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 

of them the best of that blood, the Rhode Island stock. — 
These, (the Yankees who accompanied Perry from New- 
port) with a few more shipwrights, smiths, caulkers, rig- 
gers and sail-makers, built and equipped this fleet ; and 
launched the whole into the harbor of Erie, rigged and 
ready to sail, in about ninety days after the first blow was 
struck." Mr. Burges might as well have said that his axe- 
men built a cathedral in the woods. The vessels were con- 
structed under a contract, by regular New- York ship- 
wrights, sent to Erie for that purpose. The men that Per- 
ry took with him, were flotilla-men, better than common it is 
believed, but as little able to construct a ship, as any others 
of their class- 

He says, *' They (the Newport boys^ built from the 
stump, six vessels ; the Lawrence, of twenty guns — two 
long twelves, and eighteen twenty four pound carronades ; 
the Niagara, of two long twelves, and eighteen twenty-four 
pound carronades ; the Ariel, of four guns, 18 and 24 lbs ; 
the Scorpion, of two guns, thirty -twos ; the Porcupine, 
of one gun, a thirty-two; and the Tigress, of one gun, a 
thirty-two." Now, all of these armaments, with the ex- 
ception of the two last, are wrong. The Lawrence and 
Niao-ara had each eighteen thirty -two pound carronades ; 
the Ariel had four tivelves ; and the Scorpion had one 
twenty-four. 

He says, " The British vessels were stout built, with thick 
bulwarks of solid oak ; but the American were built in a 
hasty manner, arid intended merely to carry guns and men ; 
and bring them down along side of their adversary ^ This 
passage must have given great satisfaction to the learned 
members of the Society before whom the lecture was read. 

He says, " The British fleet had a veteran commander, 
the American a young sailor. Barclay had conquered with 
Nelson, at Trafalgar ; Perry had probably never seen the 
combined movement of ships, in a fleet, formed in line of 
battle." Capt. Barclay is understood to have been thiriy-two, 
when he fought this battle ; Perry was born in August, 
21st, 1785, and consequently wanted just twenty days of 
being twenty-eight, on this occasion. 

He says, " The vessels of the enemy were impervious to 
the shot of our carronades^ If so, it is clear Perry him- 



BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE, 15 

self, had little personal agency in capturing them, as he 
was on board of vessels armed with this species of gun. 
This militates a good deal against the claim of Rhode Isl- 
and to the victory. 

He says. " In the whole fleet (the British) were three 
captains, and the commanders. While in the American, 
there was (were) but two captains. Perry and Elliott; 
all the other vessels were commanded by lieutenants, 
sailing-masters, or midshipmen." Thei'C was no com- 
modore, nor any captain on the lake, in either squadron. 
There were two commanders on the side of the English, 
Barclay and Finnis ; and two on the side of the Ameri- 
cans, Perry and Elliott. The commodore of the English 
was Sir James Lucas Yeo ; and of the Americans, Isaac 
Chauncey. 

It would be easy to extend this list of the errors, made 
by Mr. Burges, in stating his case, but enough has been 
shown to prove the exceeding carelessness with which a 
lecture that professes to correct history, has been written. 
All the foregoing blunders are fairly stated, having nothing 
in the context to qualify them, and all may be found in the 
iirst ten or twelve pages of Mr. Burges's opening. 

As my answer to Capt. Mackenzie will meet the more 
material allegations of Mr. Burges's facts, as they relate to 
the battle, I shall content myself with showing the truth of 
what has been said, in the four heads of objections. We 
will therefore proceed to the second. 

His witnesses, according to his own showing, contradict 
each other on important jjoints. " He (Perry)" says Mr. 
Buro-es, " ran down till every carronade and musket might 
reach its mark. Taylor (the saihng-master of Perry's 
brig) says within canister distance ; Perry says, in his des- 
patch and account of the battle, at half canister ; and Yar- 
nell, the 1st lieutenant who was ordered to note if the shot 
told, says at half musket shot ; 50 yards, 150 feet; not 
quite so far as from where 1 stand to the foot of the bridge." 
Here we have three witnesses to the material fact of the 
distance at which Perry engaged the enemy, and each dif- 
fering from the other 1 As if this were not sufficient, Mr. 
Burges gives what he says is an extract from the Law- 
rence's lag book, page 83, in which are the following 



16 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 

words — " In half an hour we (the Lawrence) came within 
musket shot of the enemy's new ship Detroit." Here then, 
we get canister, half-canister, musket, and half-musket 
shot, as the distances of these four witnesses; each dif- 
ering from all the others ! 

He sometimes contradicts his own witnesses. This Mr. 
Burges has done, in the instance just quoted. After giv- 
ing " canister shot," " half-canister," " musket" and "half- 
musket," as the distances at which Perry engaged in the 
Lawrence, he very cooly sets down this distance, himself, 
as " 150 feet !" Not satisfied with taking this great liber- 
ty with the testimony, he goes on to say, " In this position, 
at this slaughtering distance, the Lawrence encountered 
the Detioit, and there sustained the conflict with her, and 
the vessels which came to her aid, for two and one half 
hours." page 36. 'I'hat is to say, the Lawrence fought the 
Detroit, Hunter, and Charlotte, in smooth water, two hours 
and a half, within 150 feet ! Not satisfied with this tour de 
force^ Mr. Burges, by necessary implication makes the Cal- 
edonia, a brig totally without quarters, join in this melee, 
and actually pass hetween the combatants ! I presume it 
is unnecessary to tell any man who has the slightest knowl- 
edge of gunnery, that such an occurrence is virtually im- 
possible. This is just the distance at which two ninety- 
gun ships would go foul, to avoid each other's fire. Missing 
would be impossible, and of course, a protracted engage- 
ment impossible. When ships touch, the guns cannot be 
effectively trained ; but, at 150 feet, shot, of all sizes, could 
be sent directly into the ports of the antagonist. Ten min- 
utes would settle the fate of the Pennsylvania, under such 
circumstances. Capt. Mackenzie, a writer who is by no 
means diffident on the subject of assertions to eftect his 
object, and who endeavors to place Perry in as perilous 
circumstances as possible, puts this distance at 350 yards. 
I believe, myself, that the Lawrence backed her top-sail 
when distant 500 yards from the Detroit ; though, after she 
was crippled, she doubtless sagged nearer to the enemy. 

Take another specimen of Mr.Burges's disrespect for his 
own testimony, " Engage your adversary, each as you 
come up, as before directed," he rightly says, was Perry's 
last order, as he went into action. " This," Mr. Burges 



r 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 17 

adds, " be it remembered, was, in close action at half ca- 
hWs length,''^ page 35. Now, in his appendix, Mr Burges 
gives Perry's own account of his order of battle, in the§e 
words — "An order directing in what manner the line of 
battle should be formed ; the several vessels to keep with- 
in half cahWs length of each other, &c." page 99. Here 
then Mr. Burges cooly puts down the distance between the 
American ships, as the distance at which the enemy was to 
be fought, and in direct opposition to Perry's own account, 
this beino: every syllable that was said of half-cable's 
length in the orders ! Half-cable's length is 360 feet, and 
Capt. Perry would not be apt to order vessels without quar- 
ters, carrying long thirty-twos, to engage at a distance that 
would just suit their enemy, and be of no advantage to 
themselves. Nothing is said of any distance, in Perry's 
orders, beyond the general command for close action, which 
means within effective range of the missiles relied on. — 
Capt. Mackenzie thinks Perry ^'i as in close action, at 350 
yards; and, as this was considerably more than a whole 
cable's length, the commanding officer must have set a 
very bad example to his subordinates, if Mr. Burges's ac- 
count of his orders were true. As Perry led, he would 
have been the first man to disobey his own orders. 

It would be easy to show other instances, in which Mr. 
Burges disregarded his witnesses, but I pass them by, to 
come at once to the weakest and most extravagant of all 
his assertions. ' His statements are often opposed to the 
known laws of nature, and they sometimes involve gross 
physical impossibilities !' 

In his account of the battle, Mr. Burges says, " that the 
Niao-ara still hugged the wi?id, and kept at a distance, 
freshened as the breeze icas, by such a blaze from so many 
guns for two hours and a half." page 43. Here we have 
the novel proposition that a cannonading " freshens the 
wind," whereas seamen believe it " kills the wind" as they 
term it. As counteracting forces have a tendency to neu- 
trahze each other, we must think, to say nothing of some 
experience on the subject, that the sailors have the best 
of it. 

But this is a trifle, compared to what is to follow. That 
the reader may better understand Mr. Burges' extraordi' 
2* 



18 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 

nary theories, we here give the second of tlie diagrams, 
with which he has adorned his book. At page 38, of the 
lecture the reader will find the following — "He (Captain 
Elliott^ admits in that book (Life of Com. Elliott) that in- 
stead of making all sail, and running down upon his ad- 
versary, the Queen Charlotte, as he had been ordered to 
do, no less than three times, and engaging her at half ca- 
ble's length, he threw his topsail to the mast and brailed 
up his jib, so as to keep his position on the icater as nearly 
as practicable. Every nautical man will tell us that this 
position of the sails would hold his ship to the wind, and 
keep her in her then present place ; so that all the ships en- 
gaged, would he sagging sloioly ahead, and to the leeicard ; 
until the Caledonia and the Lawrence were directly be- 
tween the Niagara and the Detroit and the Queen- Char- 
lotte.'''' I take it nothing, as a proposition, in the English 
language, is more extraordinary than this. The diagram 
will help the reader in understanding it, though Mr. Bur- 
ges's text, among other extravagances, contradicts this very 
diagram. Let us look at the diagram. The letters d & 
6, and the figures 4 & 3, are the ships engaged ; a. being 
the Charlotte, 6, the Detroit (English vessels) 4, the 
Caledonia, and 3 the Lawrence, (Americans.) These four 
vessels are "sagging slowly ahead, and to the leeward.'* 
Of course, their movement was fro?u the point 6, the spot 
at which Mr. B urges says the Niagara threw her " topsail 
to the mast and brailed up her jib," and where all seamen 
agree in saying that she must have virtually remained — to- 
ward the lower angle of the diagram, or in a direct line 
away from the Niagara, until, the Caledonia and Lawrence 
got, in consequence of their drift ahead and to leetvard, in 
company with the Detroit and Charlotte, between her and , 
the two latter vessels ! Now, I respectfully submit, this 
could not be accomplished unless the four vessels engaged 
drifted round the whole eaith, in a straight line, regardless 
of islands and continents, in the short space of two hours 
and a half, or during the battle. If the Niagara lay sta- 
tionary at the point 6, and 3, 4, f/ & 6 sagged ahead and to 
leeward, until they brought 3 <fc 4, between 6, and b &l d,it 
could only happen by this prccess. Absurd as all this is, 
Mr. Burges's proposition will admit of no other solution. 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 



19 



DIAGRAM, NO. 2, 




20 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 



DIAGRAM, NO. 3. 




BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 21 

I know he did not mean this ; but he says it, in effect. What 
he really meant ^ he probably did not know himself. His 
head was a jumble of accusations and charges a<rainst 
Com. Elliott, and backed up by the gallant little State of 
Rhode Island, he ventures on this mathematical prodigy. 
One feels surprised that a man of talents, as Mr. JBurges 
is said to be, (1 know nothing of him personally) should 
presume to utter such trash to a Historical Society. Bad 
as it is, however, it was much applauded by the New York 
American, New York Commercial Advertiser, and other 
leading journals of that seat of virtue and intelhgence, the 
great commercial emporium of this great commercial coun- 
try, to say nothing of other papers, from which, as they are 
conducted by men equally without truth, education, or 
talents, nothing better was to be expected 1 

Let us, now, look at Mr, Burges's third diagram. The 
reader will find it on the opposite page. In this diagram, 
the author has placed a star, at the point where he says 
Capt. Perry found the Lawrence. A dotted line shows the 
course he steered in cutting the British line. . A vessel 
numbered 3, represents the position occupied by the Law- 
rence, at this moment. Now, at pages 44, 54, QQ, &- 67, the 
reader will find Mr. Burges's text on the subject of the 
relative positions of these two vessels, when Perry went on 
board the Niagara. At page QQ^ he says : " The Law- 
rence was within half musket shot of the enemy when 
Perry left her, and the Niagara was out of cannon shot 
ivhen he reached her.''^ In a word, the whole of Mr. Bur- 
ges's theory is to maintain that Capt. Elliott had the 
Niagara about a mile to windward of the Lawrence, at 
this moment. At page 54, he says that the Niagara Avas 
as far to windward of the Lawrence, at this instant, as 
eifht men could pull a cutter, in smooth water, in ten 
minutes. " Some oarsmen tell me two," he adds, " some 
one and a half, but none less than one mile. So far from 
the Lawrence, and a little farther, half musket shot, from 
the enemy, was the Niagara when Perry reached her deck." 
The star, then, is intended to represent a point, at least, 
one mile to windward of the place where Perry left the 
Lawrence. But No. 3, represents the Lawrence to wind- 
ward of the star, and, the last being an immovable pohit, 



22 BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 

in the nature of tliini^s, it follows that Mr. Burges means, 
in this diagram, to represent the Lawrence, a crippled and 
unmanageable vessel, as having drifted more than a mile 
to windward, without the aid of a current, their being none 
on Lake Erie. A reference to the text will show that this 
tour de force must have been accomplished, too, in fifteen 
minutes. In this instance, Mr. Burges's words sustain his 
diagram ! By referring to his explanations, it will be seen 
he gives this account of the matter — "No. 3, the Lawrence, 
which had drifted to windward^ after Perrj left her." If 
this were not " flat burglary," it was clearly mutiny, against 
the laws of physics. 

Mr. Burges has written about facts which he has derived 
from the information of partisans, and on a profesional sub- 
ject of which he is profoundly ignorant. I shall take my 
leave of him, by producing a single instance of his logic — 
not to say morality — in a matter where clear and just ideas 
might have been expected from a lawyer. This will be 
done with less hesitation, since every essential point con- 
nected with the few questions really in dispute between 
Capts. Perry and Elliott, and which has been broached 
by this writer, will be met in the answer to Capt. Mac- 
kenzie, The instance of logic alluded to, is as follows, 
viz : — 

In his official account of the battle, Capt. Perry makes 
use of this language : " At half past two, the wind 
springing up, Capt Elliott was enabled to bring his vessel, 
the Niagara, gallantly into close action." The Perry 
faction — for the combination of men, who have united to 
obscure, if not to falsify the truth, in this matter, deserve 
the epitiiet — The Perry faction contend that Elliott did not 
bring the Niagara into close action, at all ; some of them 
go so far, even, as to maintain she was out of reach of 
shot, until Perry got on board of her. This theory is 
maintained, like many others they advance, at the expence 
of a great deal of contradiction. Of course, it was neces- 
sary to get rid of this statement of Perry's, which could 
hardly be explained away by the pretence that his object 
was to shield Capt. Elliott, as is set up as an apology for 
his general eulogium on the conduct of this officer in the 
battle. This would be an untruth, with circumstance, and 



•battle of lake ERIE. 23 

far stronger than a simple untruth, which is all they wish 
to impute to Capt. Perry. Here is Mr. Burges's account 
of the matter. 

" On the 13th Sept." he says " he (Perry) sent a second 
despatch to the secretary of the Navy, 'to give him some 
of the particulars of the battle.' Here he saved Elliott by 
a benevolent amhlguity. He says"«^ half past two^ the 
i^ind springing up, Capt Elliott was enabled to bring his 
vessel, the Niagara, gallantly into close action. He was 
ENABLED, lie could say ; he could not say he did bring the 
Niagara into close action." Some reasoning follows to 
show that Mr. B urges considers this a point in his case. 
The italics and capitals are his own. 

If the Historical Society of Rhode Island learned nothing 
else from the lecture of Mr. Burges, it had an opportunity 
of ascertaininff what one of the eminent citizens of that 
State is pbased to term a "benevolent ambiguity." In 
this section of the country, we have a good many of these 
"benevolent ambiguities" practiced by a certain caste of 
lawyers ; more especially jjefore the County Courts and 
Justices of the Peace. Among gentlemen, every where, 
the benevolence would meet with but little respect, while 
the " ambiguity" would excite disgust. As for Capt. Per- 
ry, for even Capt. Mackenzie adopts Mr. Burges's reas- 
oning on this point, so far at least as I can understand him, 
I find myself placed in the singular position of being 
obliged to '* save him from his friends." That ofR<;er had 
not so much forgotten what was due to his honorable pro- 
fession, as to meditate any evasion as sneaking as that 
which is here attributed to him. This is fully proved by 
the context of his own letter, if proof, indeed, be necessary 
to vindicate Oliver Perry from an act altogether so un- 
worthy of his reputation, and of the service of which he 
was a distinguished member. 

The eulogiums Perry bestows on Capt. Elliot, in other 
parts of his official report of the battle, prove that he in- 
tended no equivocation in this particular sentence. More 
than enough was elsewhere said to shield that officer, if 
this were in truth the motive of the " benevolent ambiguity," 
without resorting to so miserable a subterfuge. But, Mr. 
Burges does not quote the whole sentence, the part omit- 



24 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 

ted conclusively answering his interpretation. Capt. Per- 
ry says, " At half past two, the wind springing up, Capt. 
Elliott was enabled to bring his vessel, the Niagara^ gal- 
lantly into close action ; I immediately loent on board of 
her, when he anticipated my wish by volunteering to bring 
the schooners, which had been kept astern by the lightness 
of the wind, into close action." Here we see Capt. Perry 
expressly referring to this change of position, this coming 
into close action, where Mr. B urges boasts that Perry was 
himself, as giving him (Perry) an opportunity of making 
the change of vessel of which he speaks. The use of the 
word " immediately," too, shows this. It refers to time, 
of course ; and to what time can Mr. Burges apply it, if it 
be not immediately after Capt. Elliott had got ' into 
close action.' Does he tiiink Perry would have said " im- 
mediately after Capt. Elliott was enabled to get into close 
action, I went on board the Niagara?" This would have 
been a very complicated falsifying of the truth. Perry's 
language had no such object ; it is simple, direct, and not 
to be misunderstood. His letter, moreover, furnishes proof 
for itself, how he understood this word " enabled." In 
speaking of the Ariel and Scorpion, two vessels, that even 
Mr. Burges admits ^o^ early into close action, Capt. Perry 
says— 

" The Ariel, Lt. Packet, and Scorpion, Sailing Master 
Champlin, were enabled to get early into the action, and 
loere of great serviced Here " enabled" is unequivocally 
used in direct connection with performance, and without 
any " benevolent ambiguity." 

1 have not taken the pains to refute this interpretation 
of Messrs. Burjjes and Mackenzie, with the sli<jhtest 
idea that any man of ordinary honesty, or ordinary intellect 
could require it, but, because it furnishes a fair specimen 
of the means that have been employed in defending the 
other side of this question, and may give the reader some 
notion of the moral calibre of the men with whom I have 
had to contend. 

I shall here take leave of Mr. Burges, after adverting to 
one other point, and this less with any view to my own 
justific ition, than to the justification of a gentleman who 
has keenly felt his imputations, as cruel and calumnious 



V, 

BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 25 

insinuations against his own veracity. There were but 
three medical men in the American squadron on Lake 
Erie : viz. Messrs. Horsely and Barton, the surgeons of 
the Lawrence and Niagara, and Dr. Usher Parsons, of 
Rhode Island^ the surgeon's mate of the latter vessel. All 
three of these gentlemen had taken the fever, but Dr. Par- 
sons had recovered when the battle was fought. Dr. Barton, 
the gentleman to wliom I allude, made an affidavit, in 1821, 
on the subject of the points in dispute. As the enemies 
of Capt. Elliott then contended, and have ever since con- 
tended, that the Niagara was hardly in action at all, until 
Perry took her there, and that she had but one or two men 
hurt, until after Perry got on board, Dr. Barton's testi- 
mony bore principally on these two points. As respects 
the wounded he was the best evidence of which the case 
admitted, a wounded man going to the surgeon, as a mat- 
ter of course. In order to get rid of the testimony of Dr. 
Barton, then, Mr. Burges, and I may add Capt. Mackenzie 
and most who have written on that side of the controversy 
since 1821, maintain that this gentleman was in his berth, 
and could not know the facts concerning which he testifies. 
Now it happens, that Dr. Barton's testimony is far better, 
as to manner^ than that given by most of the opposing 
witnesses. He is evidently a man who states with proper 
caution, and one who wishes to say no more than the oc- 
casion called for. The appearance of Mr. Bursres's book 
greatly mortified this gentleman, who lives in Virginia a 
life so retired, that in his letters to Com. Elliott, which have 
been transmitted to me, he appeals to the testimony of 
many officers, to sustain his statements, most of whom 
have been dead from fifteen to twenty years. These letters, 
if published, would remove every doubt as to the ability of 
Dr. Barton to prove the facts to which he swears, but they 
are too long, nor have I authority to lay them before the 
world. Of the testmiony, itself, I shall speak hereafter, it 
being my intention now merely to explain the circum- 
stances under which Dr. Barton has testified. 

Dr. Barton was ill previously to the action. When it was 

ascertained that a battle was to be fought, he did what any 

man would have done under the circumstances, who could 

do it ; he summoned all his strength, prepared for the oc- 

3 



Z' 



J 

26 BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 

casion, and was at his post, from early in the morning, 
until late in the evening. The wounded of the Niagara 
came to him, and were attended to by him. At length, 
nature gave way, and his exertions produced a reaction 
which laid him up. In consequence of his exertions on 
the day of the battle. Dr. Parsons had to attend the wound- 
ed of the Niagara, after the battle ; and in consequence 
of Dr. Parsons' attending the wounded after the battle, it 
has been asserted that Dr. Barton was in his berth, during 
the battle, and could not know the facts to which he testifies. 
In answer to all this, I shall say, first — that Dr. Barton 
testifies to little that he might not have known had he been 
in his berth, the ward-room and steerage being used as a 
cockpit; second, that Dr. Barton unequivocally denies the 
statement that he was not on duty, and furnishes evidence 
to sustain him. Other officers of the Niagara corroborate 
this statement. Among other facts to which Dr. Barton 
testifies, he says in reference to the allegation that the 
Niagara was not within reach of shot before Capt. Perry 
reached her, " one man was mortally wounded on the 
berth-deck very early in the contest, by a shot which pass- 
ed through both sides of the vessel ; and it would seem 
from this that she was not entirely out of reach of the ene- 
my." This is awkward testimony, since it disposes of the 
question of distance ; men might be mistaken, from a va- 
riety of causes ; but a cannon ball could not lie. It was 
necessary to get rid of this testimony, and, as Dr. Barton's 
character is too good to impeach him directly, he is stowed 
away in a berth, in order to give an air of hearsay or 
conjecture to the circumstances he relates. Now it hap- 
pens that Dr. Barton, in one of his letters written as re- 
cently as since the appearance of Mr. Burges's lecture, 
incidentally and naturally alludes to this occurrence, for 
he does not appear to know that his account of this par- 
ticular incident was questioned, except by placing him in 
his berth ; rendering his testimony still more probable. 
His account is this A wounded man had been lowered 
down tlie forward hatch, and he had gone forward to re- 
ceive him. While passing along the berth-deck, the shot in 
question entered, mortally wounded a man who was al- 
ready dying in his hammock, of the fever, and passed out 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 



27 



at the opposite side of the brig. This was Dr. Barton's 
first service, and he mentions all this, not as testimony, not 
in justification of what he had said previously, but in a 
paragraph in which he describes his own feehngs to his old 
commander, in a very natural summary of the impressions 
that had been made on himself, on an occasion entirely 
novel. One such natural and incidental narrative, pro- 
ceeding from a man of character, is worth a dozen affida- 
vits drawn up by a lawyer, who has an end in view, and 
sworn to under dictation. It is proper to add, however, 
that all which Dr. Barton states in his letter of 1821, is 
sworn to. 

Here I leave Mr. Burges, for the present. I say for the 
present, as many of his statements will be answered, in 
answering those of Capt. Mackenzie. I must correct my- 
self — while writing this paragraph my eye has fallen on 
one of Mr. Burges's cool contradictions of his own wit- 
nesses which is too glaring to overlook. At pages 91, & 92, 
he gives the finding of the Court of Inquiry, which sat on 
Capt. Elliott, in 1815. In it are these words ; " The C^urt 
of Inquiry convened at the request of Capt. Jesse D. Elli- 
ott, having deliberately examined all the evidence produced 
before them, for the purpose of investigating his conduct 
in the glorious battle of Lake Erie, on the 10th Sept. 1813, 
in ivhich he bore so conspicuous a part^ sincerely regrets 
&c." — again — " The Court, however, feel convinced that 
the attempts to wrest from Capt. Elliott the laurels ha 
gained in that splendid victory^ oui^ht in no wise to lessen 
him in the opinion of his fellow citizens, &^c." 

On the very page on which Mr. Burges publishes this 
finding of the Court, he says for hniiself — " This opinion 
merely negatives the allegation of the British Court Mar- 
tial, viz : — That Elliott was " making away from the bat- 
tle." Thus, according to Mr. Burges, when a Court 
speaks of the " conspicuous part" borne by an officer in a 
battle, and "of the laurels he had gained," it means merely 
that he did not run away ! There is Httle of *' benevolent 
ambiguity" in this. 

The admission of Capt. Mackenzie that he is the author 
of the article in the North American Review, greatly sim- 
plifies my answer to that journal. As his authorities are 



28 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 

very much the same for this article and Iiis Life of Perrj, 
they will be met when 1 come to reply to that book. It 
may be well, however, to point out in passina^, the manner 
in which public opinion is manufactured among us. Here 
are the Commercial Advertiser, the North American Re- 
view, and Capt. Mackenzie, of the U. S. Navy, a chival- 
rous and enlightened gentleman, forsooth, all agreeing to 
decrv the Naval Historv, in its account of the Battle of 
Lake Erie, a certain sign that its author has been careless, 
or corrupt ! When we get behind the curtain we find all 
three of these articles come from the same connection, and 
two from the same man. Corrupt ! what motive could I 
have for not joining in the cry against Com. Elliott, be- 
yond a wish to tell the truth 1 Is it politics 1 When and 
where have I ever sought political favor 1 It has been 
well known to my friends, that for years and years, I have 
uniformly declared no probable inducement could tempt me 
to hold office under the people or government of this coun- 
try. I have never asked it, and no man has a right to say 
I wish it. But is Com. Elliott such a favorite that serving 
him in this matter would be likely to serve myself? Is 
it not matter of notoriety that the advantage all will admit 
I have gained in this controversy, has been gained right in 
the teeth of a most violent popular prejudice? Com. El- 
liott has been bitterly and blindly assailed by one party, 
while the other has never sustained him. The naked truth 
is, that corruption stalks so boldly through the land, that 
when a man acts under the influence of the simple right, 
his conduct is not appreciated, and that portion of the 
community which creates public opinion — if the e23hemeral 
notions of the day merit so respectable an epithet — imme- 
diately busy themselves in hunting up for him the most 
plausible bit of baseness they can imagine, by way of a 
motive. The truth is not to be concealed — a man is much 
safer among us, by the frank avowal of a tolerably corrupt 
incentive, than by pretending to principle ; there being a 
prevalent indisposition to believe in the existence of the 
latter. 

As for the North American, I shall answer directly to 
only one of its charges, leaving the rest for that which is to 
come after. Capt. Mackenzie accuses me of having sup- 



BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE, 



29 



pressed the fact of the superiority of the British in force, 
because I have omitted to say that they had 63 guns, in 
the battle of Lake Erie, while Perry had but 54 ! Now 
does Capt. Mackenzie, will any sailor say that the number 
of the guns settles the question of the superiority of force ? 
In the tirst place, owing to the manner in which his guns 
were mounted, Perry fought just as many in broadside as 
his enemy, at once destroying this seeming disparity. Then 
the weight of the guns and the size of the vessels were 
altogether in favor of the Americans. These facts are be- 
yond controversy, though there is some little question as to 
a part of the English metal. I have never entertained a 
doubt that the Americans were superior to their enemy, in 
force, comparing whole numbers with whole numbers, on 
the 10th Sept. ; though they fought under disadvantages 
which tended materially to neutralize this disparity. This 
much is substantially admitted in the History, though the 
precise calibres of the guns is not given, as some doubts 
were thrown over the point. I would not give the number 
of the English guns, when I could not give their calibres. 
It suited Capt. Mackenzie to parade the 54 against the 63, 
but it did not suit me. In order to prove that my for- 
bearance was more just than his boasting of this appar- 
ent disparity, I now give the English official account of the 
metal of both parties. 

English Squadron. 

Detroit, 19 Guns, 2 long 24's ; 1 long 18, on pivot ; 6 long 12's; 

8 long 9'3; 124 lbs. carronade ; 1 18 lbs. 

carronade. 
Charlotte 17 " 1 long 12, on pivot; 2 long 9's; 14 24 lbs. 

carronades. 
Lady Prevost, 13 " 1 long 9, on pivot; 2 long 6's; 10 12 lbs. 

carronades. 
Hunter, 10 " 4 long 6'b ; 2 long 4's ; 2 long 2's ; 2 12 lbs. 

carronades. 
Little Belt, 3 " 1 long 12, on pivot; 2 long 6's. 

Chippeway, 1 " 1 long 9. 

Guns, 63 Metal, total — 851. Average as to guns, 13 1-2 

lbs. each gun 

3* 



30 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE, 

Ai7ierican Squadron. 

Lawrence, 20 guns. 2 long 12's ; 18 32 lbs. carronades. 

Niagara, 20 " 2 long 12's ; 18 32 lbs. carronades. 

Caledonia, 3 " 21ong24's; 1 32 lbs. caironade. -' 

Ariel, 4 " 4 long 12's, on pivots. 

Somers, 2 " 1 long 24 : 1 32 lbs. carronade. 

Porcupine, 1 " 1 long 32, pivot. 

Tigress, 1 " 1 long 32, pivot. 

Scorpion, 1 " 1 long 32, 1 24 lbs. carronade, on pivots. 

Trippe, 1 '' 1 long 24, pivot. 

Guns, 54 Metal total — 1480 — Average as to guns 27 1-2 lbs. 
each gun; or about double that of the English. 

Such is Capt. Barclay's account of the force. That he 
has not diminished his own is probable, as he has certainly 
not exaggerated the American. The Trippe had a long 
32, instead of the 24 he has given her, while the Scorpion 
is believed to have had a long 24, and a 32 lb. carronade. 
The remainder of the American metal is thought to be 
correctly given. But, allowing some small inaccuracies to 
exist, who will pretend that the 63 English guns, cseteris 
paribus, are equal to the 54 American ? 

I do not think all this difference of force was fairly avail- 
able to the Americans, under the circumstances in which 
the battle was actually fought, but I can entertain no doubt 
that by simply parading the fact before the reader, that the 
English had nine guns more than the Americans, I should 
not have given him an accurate idea of the relative physi- 
cal means of the two parties, considered as a whole. Much 
of my minute information comes from the late Capt. Holdup 
Stevens, who was a witness against Capt. Elliott in the con- 
troversy, and this gentleman freely admitted to me the su- 
periority of our squadron. Other officers employed on the 
10th of Sept. have done the same. I know that Perry 
maintained that lie was inferior, but I think he was wrong. 
In a biographical sketch of that officer, written by myself, 
the point is discussed at a little length, and I refer the read- 
er to it for my side of the question. I do not believe there 
is a respectable man living, who has ever seen the two 
squadrons, who would deliberately swear, in a court of jus- 
tice, that the English were superior to the Americans ju 
physical means, without reference to the manner in Avhicli 
these means happened to be employed, on the 10th Sept. 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 31 

An officer of great experience, one friendly to Perry, who 
had seen much service in battle, visited the squadrons on 
Lake Erie and Lake Champlain, before they were separat- 
ed ; and he told me that he thoudit the Lawrence and Ni- 
agara, could they have got witliin efiective distance imme- 
diately, sufficient to have defeated all of Barclay's force 
united, especially with a stiff breeze ; and on the other 
hand, that he thought the Confiance nearly, if not quite 
equal, to all McDonough's. I know this is not the doc- 
trine to gain favor ; but my aim is truth, and not personal 
popularity. Wherever I err, it is done ignorantly. 

1 come now to the criticism of Mr. William A. Duer, as 
it was published in the Commercial Advertiser. This gen- 
tleman is an uncle, by marriage, of Capt. Mackenzie, and 
his beautiful article may be taken as a part of the family 
picture. He probably did not anticipate, when he wrote it, 
all the consequences to himself that might flow from his 
occupation. 

As this article was considered libellous, I sued the editor 
of the journal for the wrong he had done me. The case 
was referred to arbitrators, and the result was a dscision 
in my favor ; a moral, as well as a legal decision. 'J'his 
removes the necessity for dwelling on much that it might, 
otherwise, have been well to answer. As the argument 
and evidence are the same, with all the controversialists on 
that side, I shall defer my answers, to the reply to Capf 
Mackenzie in this instance also ; pointing out, now, a suf- 
ficient number of instances to put this pretended review 
before the world in its true colois. 

I shall show that this article was written — 1st, unfairly, 
as to its pretension and performance ; 2d, that it is written 
in io-norance ; 3d, that it is not sufficiently tenacious of the 
truth ; 4th, that it lays down positions, which its own wit- 
nesses contradict ; 5th that it was written with a direct in- 
tention to deceive, or with a carelessness of facts that is 
but little less culpable, when it is remembered that char- 
acter was coimected with its statements. If I fail to es- 
tablish every one of these positions, let the consequences 
be visited on myself: If I succeed in my undertaking, let 
the public do justice in the premises. I might here quote 
the decision of the arbitrators on the moral issue that was 



82 BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 

laid before them, but I m ill rest my case on a few proofs 
and aroumeuts, that 1 prefer to ofter to the world, before 
any opinions, coming from what source the latter may. 

The first sentence contains a falsehood in fact, as well 
as a false pretension, as to all the known objects of a re- 
viewer. It is in these words, viz : 

*' Cooper's Naval History. — Althouj^h the same courte- 
sy has not been extended to us in regard to tliis book, by 
its publishers, which we uniformly experienced on similar 
occasions, before we committed any criticism upon Mr. 
Cooper or his works — and which we have since continued 
to experience with respect to the works published by them 
of other authors — yet we felt so much interest in the sub- 
ject as to induce us, notwithstanding this neglect — which, 
as we do not impute it to the worthy booksellers, is upon 
the whole rather flattering^ — to obtain this last work of Mr. 
Cooper's in spite of his prohibition^ and to give it early, 
deliberate and candid perusal." 

I have extracted this precious opening, simply as a spe- 
cimen of editorial impudence, and recklessness of asser- 
tion. I say editorial, because Mr. Stone has admitted that 
he wrote it himself; prefixing it to Mr. Duer's pretended 
criticism. The reader is asked to examine it. "Commit- 
ting criticism" upon Mr. Cooper and his works, in the first 
place, have induced his publishers, to deny Mr. Stone the 
courtesy of offering new copies of his different works. Mr, 
Stone has committed libels on Mr. Cooper, and he has 
smarted for it, and is very likely to smart for it again, if that 
is what he calls criticism. Notwithstanding this neglect — 
the neglect of offering the editor of a daily newspaper a 
book that sold for $4,50! — Mr. Stone nobly resolved to 
obtain a copy — whether bought or begged he does not say 
— and to give it early, deliberate and candid perusal. All 
this he manfully resolved on performing, in spite of Mr. 
Cooper's prohibition to his publishers, about giving him a 
set gratuitously This is one of the party, too, who has 
talked of levying black mail from the press, because 1 have 
dared to enforce the laws of the land against the tyranni- 
cal course of a portion of his corps. Comment is unneces- 
sary ; the facts speaking for themselves. The whole pic- 
ture is complete, when 1 add that Messrs. Lea & Blanch- 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 33 

ard wrote to Mr. Stone to say that they never received any 
such prohibition from me, and that Mr. Stone subsequent- 
ly explained away his allegation, by speaking of it as only 
a thing he had suggested as " probable." 

The profession of " early, deliberate and candid peru- 
sal" will be made to appear in its true colors as 1 proceed. 
" We had hoped that on this occasion," continues my crit- 
ic, " Mr. Cooper — to use a sea phrase, as he does, in a 
sense that a seaman never used it in — would ' go aloft' in- 
stead of remaining in the cockpit." I confess I was a lit- 
tle surprised at this, as it is asserting I am so ignorant as 
not to understand the use of the commonest sea terms. As 
Mr. Stone, on the face of the article, wrote this paragraph 
also, and he is no seaman, I presume he has detected my 
isrnorance through the seamen he has consulted on this oc- 
casion. I can conjecture^ but do not pretend to Know who 
these are, but there is little doubt, if their criticism applies 
to the expression I understand it to mean, that they are 
just fit, as sailors, and as men familiar with the language of 
the finest sea in the world, to furnish facts to a reviewer of 
the Stone calibre. In the Naval History, the terms " go 
aloft," " went aloft," "gone aloft" &c.,were applied to 
ships that had passed up the Mediterranean. This is 
using a term, as no sailor ever before used it in ! Now, I 
unhesitatingly say that this is the common expression at the 
Rock, and that I had heard it probably a thousand times, 
before Mr Stone ever saw even the Atlantic. 

This article is written unfairly as to pretension and per- 
formance. The caption is " Cooper's Naval History:" and 
*' this last ivor]< of Mr. Cooper" is to receive an •' early, 
deliberate and a candid perusal." After all this profession, 
what is this pretended review ? Not a word is said of any 
event, fact, or narrative, with a solitary exception, beyond 
the Battle of Lake Erie. Like Jack's letter to his mother, 
the result of this ' deliberate and candid perusal' is an arti- 
cle that is all " pig-tail" — all, the Battle of Lake Erie. It 
came, like the Biography of Commodore Perry, from the 
same clique, and cannot travel out of the family ! Oliver 
Perry was its burthen, and such men as M'Donough, De- 
catur, Paul Jones and fifty others, were as if they had never 
lived. Instead of assuming " Cooper's Naval History" for 



34 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 

his caption, tlie writer of this article, in order to bring his 
profession and practice in Iiarmony, should have taken 
*' Battle of Lake Erie," or some similar heading for his ti- 
tle. In a word, it is a high sounding profession of candor 
and fair critical decision, justified by an ex-parte discussion 
of one single event, which discussion is treated as if the 
writer were a special pleader instead of a judge. 

Again — who ever heard an honest summing up of any 
question, in which the testimony of one side is substan- 
tially kept out of view. Such has been the case, however, 
in Mr. William A. Duer's upright criticism. While he 
parades garbled statements of the evidence against Capt. 
Elliott before the world, he entirely keeps the testimony in 
favor of that officer, out of view. Psow there are not only 
more witnesses who testify in behalf of Capt. Elliott, than 
there are of those who testify against him, but there are 
better witnesses, and here is every word Mr. Duer has seen 
lit to say on the subject. After publishing certain affidavits 
that the friends of Com. Perry had previously given to the 
world, he adds: — 

" In regard to the evidence adduced by Capt. Elliott 
which had been sufficiently neutralized or invalidated, it 
was stated that Lieutenants Smith and Edwards, and Pur- 
ser Magrath, were deceased — that Lieutenant Conklin and 
Mr. S. Wardwell Adams were no longer in the navy, and 
that there was no officer in the American fleet bearing the 
name of W. Nicholls, one of the witnesses of Captain El- 
liott." 

Here is every syllable Mr. Duer says of the rebutting tes- 
timony, unless where he uses these words, in stating his 
case in the preliminary explanations : " Capt. Elliott, how- 
ever, asserted in a newspaper, that he had in his possession 
evidence enough to destroy the object of this attack (an at- 
tack on Capt. Elliott is meant,) and that he had prepared 
the materials to justify the rank which had been conferred 
on him, which he only held from publication, from motives 
of forbearance. Upon this, the brother of the commodore, 
the present Capt. M. C. Perry, publicly called on Capt. El- 
liott to exhibit the documents on which he relied for his jus- 
tification against the charges of Com. Perry ; which was 
consequently done, and these "evidences" were promptly 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 35 

met and rebutted by the additional affidavits from which we 
extract the material factsJ'"' 

Any tiling can be proved by siicb means : It is true you 
have testimony, but it is completely put to shame by ours, 
and here is the latter to prove it ! Had T said any thing 
about Capt. Elliott's testimony — had I said any thing about 
the points in controversy, there might have been some ex- 
cuse for this course, did the article profess to be simply an 
answer to my accouut of the battle ; but it professes to be 
a review of the hook^ in the first place, and my offence, 
when the other side was cornered, and compelled to enter 
on a justification, was reduced to one altogether of omis- 
sion. Silence was my error. I ought, in their view of 
the matter, to have criminated Capt. Elliott, when 1 had 
more than serious doubts of his guilt, and when the facts 
were clearly in an unfit state to be received at all into the 
pages of history. 

Here, then, we find two reviewers, Messrs. Mackenzie 
and Duer, furnishing the evidence of one side of a case 
before them, and suppressing that of the other. Let us see 
on what ground the latter justifies his proceeding. It is 
true, Mr. Duer does not say of himself, that this person is 
dead, and no longer in the navy, as a reason for not giving 
his testimony ; but he presents the facts so as to offer 
them as a general excuse for not showing what these gen- 
tlemen had said. The idea is very extraordinary — quite 
as remarkable in its way, as the '* enabled" of Mr. Bur- 
ges— and, properly improved, might allow a critic to dem- 
onstrate that even AVashington was a desperate adventurer 
and a man without morals. Of being all thi5, he was 
charged in some of the earlier English publications, and 
let the man who threw these vile aspersions on the Fath- 
er of his country, outlive all who could deny them, and his 
single testimony would establish the fact. The notion that 
a man is no longer an available witness in this case, be- 
cause he has' left the navy, need only to be mentioned, to 
be lausrhed at. 



36 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 

But, how Stands the fact 1 The following witnesses tes- 
tify in favor of Capt. Elliott, viz : — 

Lieutenant Smith, 
•' Edwards, 

" Webster, 

" Conklin, 

Purser Magrath, 
Surgeon Barton, 
Master's- Mate Tatem, 
Midshipman Cummings, 
f " Montgomery, 

" Adams, 

" Nichols, 

" Page, 

Boatswain Berry, 
Captain in the army Brevoort. 

Here then are fourteen witnesses, who speak more or 
less decidedly in favor of Capt. Elliott ; most of them in 
the strongest terms of approbation. Of these fourteen, 
Mr. Duer mentions only six, at all ; less than half, and 
two of these six, he excludes on the ground that they were 
no longer in the navy. One, he says, or makes his side 
say, the effect being the same, was a man of straw. Well, 
admit this shallow reasoning to be sound, why has he not 
given the testimony of the remaininjr eight "? Among these 
eight alone, it is easy to find evidence, and the best the 
case allows, too, to refute some of the strongest facts on 
which the enemies of Capt. Elliott rely. Doctor Barton, 
as I haver shown, is an all important witness ; as are Lt. 
Webster, and Capt. Brevoort. 

But is this excuse sincere 1 In the preceding sentence 
to that which I have quoted from Mr. Duer, that gentle- 
man says, " There were many other documents in cor- 
roboration of the preceding (the evidence against Capt. 
Elliott, as given by Mr. Duer) within the control of the 
family of Com. Perry, but they chose to publish only the 
evidence of those officers who were living, and in the 
United States at the time, (the lime of the controversy of 
1821,) and in adherence to this determination, the evidence 
of Lts. Packett and Yarnell, who were both dead, was 
withheld." 



BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 37 

Here the witnesses are put into a new category ; those 
who were out of the United States, at the time, were to 
be exckided ! Well, neither Dr. Barton, Capt. Brevoort, 
nor Mr. Cuiiimings, nor several others were out of the 
United States, as is seen by their pubHshed affidavits. — 
Messrs. Brevoort, Nicliolls, Page, Montgomery, Barton and 
Berry, were ail at home, in ItSSl, and all ahve. 

Wiiat other evidence has the Perry family, that of Lt. Pack- 
ett excepted, which has not been published 1 On this head, 
I can say that all the testimony, as I understood the mat- 
ter, was sent to me, while the history was in progress, and 
I found nothing in the portions that had not been publish- 
ed, to influence an imp3.rtm\ man, tchile I did jL7id strong 
proof to show that the statements of Messrs. Duer and 
Mackenzie are not accurate. 

The reader will see the manner in which Mr. Packett's 
name has been introduced- At the proper moment, I will 
quote from this gentleman's testimony to show that it really 
contradicts the most serious of the charges against Capt. 
Elliott. 

There was no such man in the fleet as " W. Nicholis, 
one of the witnesses of Capt. Elliott." Now it was noto- 
rious there was an oflicer of the name of Nicholis in the 
Somers, and the mistake Vv^as simply clerical. The name 
is D. C. Nicholis, and it was shown to the arbitrators 
that the two initial letters were written in a manner 
that might well mislead a printer, or a copyist. The man 
was there, he testilied as stated beyond a doubt, and dis- 
tinctly refuted one of the charges against Capt. Elliott — 
a charge, too, that no one seems disposed to father, as it is 
only given on rumor. To make a point of a mistake like 
this, argues in itself, a feeble case. 

I have said that there is one exception to the devotedness 
of Mr. Duer to the Battle of Lake Erie. He does step 
aside, in a note, to say the following, viz : — " Alluding to 
the carrying of the Detroit and Caledonia the year before, 
by boarding from the shore — which was a military enter- 
prize, projected and conducted by Capt. Towson, of the 
artillery — but as Lt. Elliott commanded one of the boats, 
he assumed the whole credit — and Mr. Cooper ratifies his 
claims.'* A more deliberate falsification of history, or a 
4 



38 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 

more reckless substitution of irresponsible rumors for fact, 
cannot be found, than is contained in this paragraph. It it 
out of my power to say whether Mr. Duer did, or did not, 
examine the testimony that had been laid before the world, 
in connection with this affair ; but I openly challenge him 
to produce a single published statement to justify his ac- 
count. In reply to the most unanswerable proofs that 
Capt. Elliott both planned and conducted this expedition, 
including an admission of General Towson himself, who 
only claims to have done that which Mr. Duer ascribes to 
Capt. Elliott, or command one of the boats, Mr. Stone 
said that his correspondent (Mr. Duer) had doubtless been 
misled by statements in various newspapers. I then call- 
ed on Mr. Stone, three several times, to name one of these 
various newspapers, which misled Mr. Duer. I cannot 
discover that the paper has ever been produced, and I now 
publicly repeat the call. Produce a single newspaper, Mr. 
W. A. Duer, or Mr. W. L. Stone, if you can, the New 
York Commercial Advertiser excepted, and those that have 
copied this vile calumny, and I will give you, one or both, 
credit for a sincerity that I now find it impossible to con- 
cede. A dispute certainly existed between Messrs. El- 
liott and Towson, in connection with this enterprize ; 
but it arose solely from the question whether Gen. Towson 
did or did not act as a captain of artillery in the affair, or 
as a volunteer; not from any doubt as to the individual 
who planned and conducted the attack. In this contro- 
versy, Gen. Towson distinctly attributes the credit of having 
planned and commanded the expedition to Lt. Elliott, while 
he claims for himself that of having taken one of the ves- 
sels. As Mr. Stone has publicly confessed that his corres- 
pondent had been misled in this note, it is unnecessary 
to say more than to repeat the call for the proof that even 
this is true. For myself, I believe Mr. Duer stands alone 
in saying that Capt. Elliott did not, and that Gen. Towson 
did plan and conduct this enterprise. If he has any au- 
thority, however, he can, and probably will show it. 

2d. — The article is written in ignorance. By this is 
meant, that Mr. Duer has not sufficient knowledge of 
ships and sea terms, and of the facts in the case, to write 
a respectable review, even if he possessed the disposition. 



BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE, 39 

One instance will be sufficient to show this truth. The 
battle was fought with the wind at South East, the Eno-Iish 
line Ijing-to, heading up about S. S. West, or S. W. and 
by South, The Americans were edging down with the 
wind abeam ; or steering South West, a little oft*, perhaps. 
Now, in this state of facts, Mr. Duer asks this question, 
with an air of knowledge and pretension, as if he were a 
very" Doctor Fanstvis, at the points of the compass. — 
** When * at this moment the Niagara passed to the loesi- 
ward, a short distance to loindivard of the Lawrence,' 
might not the former have sooner reached " the head of 
the enemy's line," by passing to eastward, as did the Cale- 
donia, which, he tells us, " followed" the Niagara to ^ec- 
ward.''^ After this exhibition of puerihty and ignorance, 
Dr. Duer indulges in some plesantry, evidently much to his 
own satisfaction. '* In order, it would seem, to gain the 
same point, viz. "the head of the enemy's line," the Niagara 
kept to windtoard of the Lawrence, steering ivesterli/,''^ he 
goes on to add, " and the Caledonia ** followed" by keep- 
ing to leeward, and steering easterly!"'' As Dr. Duer — I beg 
pardon for ever having called so learned a person a simple 
Mr. — uses the italics, himself, let him have all the credit of 
them. 

To answer this logic, and mathematics so profound, it 
will be necessary to quote what the history does say. The 
three vessels, the Lawrence, Niagara and Caledonia, are 
in a line ahead, steering south west, or south west and by 
west, and the Niagara wishes to pass the leading vessel. — 
**At this moment," says the history, " the Niagara passed 
to the westward, a short distance to windward of the Law- 
rence, steering for the head of the enemy's line, and the 
Caledonia followed to leeward." That is to say, both the 
Niagara and Caledonia went to the v/estward, or towards 
the head of the enemy's line, which enemy was heading up 
about S. W. and by South, one going to windward of the 
Lawrence, and the other following her, but going to leeward 
of the Lawrence. Out of this statement Dr. Duer makes 
the following prodigies. He makes the Caledonia g-o to 
the eastward, and yet to leeward, with the wind at South 
East; and he makes her'go towards the head of the enemy's 
line, which was to the westward of her, and yet go presisely 



40 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 

the other way ; or to the eastward! The history no where 
says the Caledonia headed easterly a single point that day, 
or at least, during the battle ; nor could she have done so, 
without steering directly from her enemies, or running 
away. Now, as Dr. Duer justly applauds her gallant com- 
mander, and does attribute this exploit to him, it must be 
on his own authority ; and the whole shows that his head 
was like "a no-man's land" on the subject of the manceu- 
vres of this battle. In point of fact, he knew nothing 
about them. It is charity to infer igiiGrancCy as the alter- 
native is a wilful perversion of facts. 

3d — The article is not sufriciently tenacious of the truth. 
As this is a grave charge, it shall be distinctly shown. I 
have given the history of the ditferent controversies. In 
speaking of that which commenced with a pamphlet against 
Capt. Elliott, in 1821, Dr. Duer uses this language, viz : 
*' When the late Commodore Perry" as his g(]u.q.\\y gallant 
and lamented friend the editor informs us, " was sbout to 
sail on the cruise which terminated his valuable life^ he 
requested Com. Decatur to take charge of the following 
documents, «S;:c." All this is Dr. Duer's, though part is 
quoted from the preface of the pamphlet. The effect is to 
lead the reader to believe that Com. Decatur, the gallant 
and lamented friend of Perry, edited the pamphlet, and no 
doubt such was the intention. As Decatur was killed in 
March 1820, it will be difficult to show he edited a pamph- 
let in 1821. In point of fact, he had nothing to do with 
the publication. 

Again, Dr. Duer foully misquotes me. He gives the 
following note from the history, in a way to leave nothing 
but the part I have put in italics. ^'■Pojmlar ojjinion, ivhich 
is too apt to confound distinctions in such matters^ usually 
attaches the idea of more gallantry to the mere act of 
passing in a boat from one vessel to another^ during the 
action, than in fiohtino^ on a vessel's deck. This was the 
least of Perry'' s merits. Capt. Elliott was much longer in 
the same hoat^ and passed nearly through the whole line 
tivice; and Mr. M'Grath had left the Niagara, for one of 
the other vessels, in quest of shot, before Capt. Perry quit- 
ted the Lawrence. A boat, also, passed twice, if not three 
times J from the Caledonia to the Trippe^ in the height of 



BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 41 

the engagement^ and others, quite likely, were sent from 
vessel to vessel. Capt. Perry's merit was an indomitable 
resolution not to be conquered, and the manner in which 
he sought new modes of victory, when the old ones failed 
him. The position taken by the Niagara at the close of 
the affair, the fact that he sought the best means of repair- 
ing his loss, and the motive with which he passed from 
vessel to vessel, constitute his claims to admiration. There 
ivas no doubt a personal 7'isk in all the boats, but there 
was personal risk every where on such an occasion." 

Now, of the foregoing note, the portion in italics, is all* 
that Dr. Duer gives. All that precedes the word " engage- 
ment" he gives as a continued and connected extract. — 
Let us examine this pretended extract, for its motive. It is 
certain that this garbling is accidental, or it has been done 
by de^gn. Is it the first? He who reads the secrets of the 
heart alone can say, except through conjecture. When 
it is remembered, however, that the article was intended 
as an attack on the historian, is it reasonable to suppose 
any man in his senses would thus mutilate a passage ac- 
cidentally ? To me it seems to be intended as a summary 
of the note, rather than as a quotation, though given as the 
latter; and if so, there can be no question tTiatthe mutila- 
tion has been made understandingly. When, however, 
we come to see that the real design of the historian is given 
in the closing sentences of the note, and that these senten- 
ces are altogether omitted^ can there be a doubt as to the 
intention ? This, after all, is the best test we can apply. 
If an author be deliberately misquoted, «s to meanings '\t 
leaves a suspicion ; and, having given the note in full, with 
Dr. Duer's mutilations, I leave the reader to judo-e for 
himself. 

The next instance I shall cite leans still more strongly 
towards intentional deception. All the three writers I am 
now answering, or Messrs. Burges, Duer and Mackenzie, 
contend that Capt. Elliott did not bring the Niagara into 
close action at all, but tliat she was first carried into close 
action by Capt. Perry, when he got on board of her. I 
maintain that Capt Elliott took the Niagara into as close 
action, or about as near, as Capt. Perry ever carried the 
Lawrence, though the latter subsequently carried the Ni- 
4* 



43 BATTLll OF LAKE ERlEr 

agara much nearer, when he cut the line. Out of this 
last cn-cumstance, I suppose all the honest misuuclerstand- 
ini^ on this point which has occurred, to have taken its rise. 
The facts shall be explained in their place ; here, I propose 
onlj to substantiate my second charge against Dr. Duer. 
Speaking of the danger which existed at different points in 
the battle, this gentleman says that " two places were ex- 
empted from the ubiquity of danger, and both happened to 
be successively occupied by Capt. Elliott — tlrs^t mi board 
the boat, when he was passing up and down the line ' du- 
ring the height of the engagement' in consequence of his 
having volunteered to bring the distant vessels into action ; 
and second, 07i hoard the Niagara, until Capt. Perry board- 
ed her, and brought her within reach of the enemy'' s gunsj'* 

I will ask the reader to observe that, in this extract. Dr. 
Duer comments on his ow^n misquotations, applying the 
words " the height of the engagement," to Capt. Elliott, 
when, as written by me, they apply only to the boat which 
passed between the Caledonia and the Trippe. When it 
is remembered that the charge intended to be made out 
against me was a wish to glorify Capt. Elliott, at the ex- 
pense of Capt. Perry, this false application of words plain- 
ly written, and as plainly printed, has a very unpleasant as- 
pect. But this is not my point. In the extract, my re- 
viewer distinctly asserts that the Niagara e^ra^ not within 
reach of the enemy's guns, until Capt. Perry carried her 
there. This, be ii. remembered, is substantially the Eur- 
ges-Mackenzie-Duer theory, although Capt. Mackenzie 
may happen to know too much to insist on it literally. — 
He wouM probably say she was at long shot. 

Now, Mr. Duer, maintaining this theory, cites the pres- 
ent Commodore Turner, who commanded the Caledonia, 
as a witness. This gallant officer says in his affidavit — 
"The Niagara might have relieved the Lawrence from the 
Queen Charlotte, if she had made proper exertions to 
bring her to close action ; but, by keeping her main-top- 
sail aback and her jib brailed up, she kept at too great a 
distance from the enemy to do him any material injury^ 
and sustained scarcely any herself until the Commodore 
took command of her, who immediately bore up and pas- 
sed through the enemy's line, firing both his broadsides 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 43 

with such tremendous effect, as compelled him instantly 
to surrender. 

^^Iticas the general opinion of the American officers, and 
expressed with much indignation, that Capt> Elliott did not 
do his duty in the battle; inasmuch as he did not bring his 
vessel, AS soon as he might have done, into close action, 
which circumstance only, made the result of the battle j or 
a short time doubtful. Soon after the victory, Capt. Elli- 
ott*s condu<it was spoken of, as well in Gen. Harrison's 
army as in the fleet, with great disapprobation and cen- 
sure," &.C. &-C. «fec. 

The foregoing stands in the aflfidavit, as 1 have given it ;■ 
the remainder being unnecessary for the point before us. 
Dr. Duer gives the substance of Mr. Turner's affidavit, un- 
til he reaches " She kept at too great a distance from the 
enemv «fec." when he puts in marks of quotation, and 
professes to give his words. The quotation goes on much 
larther than I have given it above, with the exception that 
the sentence I give in italics is wholly omitted I Now this 
is done without any mark, or sign, to indicate the fact. The 
words " Soon after the victory" follow, in the next sen- 
tence, the words " instantly to surrender," precisely as if 
they had been so given by Mr. Turner. The paragraph 
which exists in the original is sunk. Dr. Duer giving the 
whole as belonging to one and the same paragraph. Let 
us search for a motive for all this. 

Dr. Duer,. it has been shown, maintains that the Niaga> 
ra was not within range of shot, until Capt. Perry reached 
her. His object was clearly to criminate Capt. Elliott, and 
why should he drop this particular sentence, from his quo- 
tation'? Every syllable of it, told in favor of his theory,, 
but the words " as soon as he might have done,'''' and they 
flatly contradict it. Without these awkward and tell-tale 
words, the passage would read " inasmuch as he did not 
bring his vessel into close action," which was precisely 
what Dr. Duer was contending for. But the words " as 
soon as he might have done" were there, and they com- 
pletely alter the sense. To suppose that a sentence which 
commenced a paragraph was dropped accidentally, is high- 
ly unreasonable, and if we look at the passage, we see that 
i)r. Duer could not quote it, without showing that his own 
witness contradicts him. He chose, therefore, to avoid it. 



44 BATTLE OF LAKE EUTE* 

One more instance on this point must suffice. The 
charge against Com. ElHott, as indeed may be seen 
by the extract just given from Mr. Turner's affidavit, is 
that he did not close and assist the Lawrence, at a peri- 
od of the action when he lay astern of the Caledonia, with 
his main-top-sail to the mast, and his jib brailed. Unless 
explained, such a circumstance might justly criminate any 
man. But Com. Elliott says, and I shall presently show 
that he says it truly, that his senior officer, Capt. Perry, 
had given him a station in the line, astern of the Caledo- 
nia, that he enjoined it on him to keep that station, and it 
was for him who gave the order, to take the responsibility 
of changing his own line of battle, if circumstances re- 
quired a change. This might have been done by signal, 
or by sending a boat, and, as Capt. Perry who was in the 
Lawrence, himself, knew how much she had suffered, a fact 
Capt. Elliott could not know, except by conjecture, it was 
precisely the duty a commander-in-chief was present to 
perform. Com. Elliott further affirms, that only one sig- 
nal was made by Capt. Perry, while on board the Law- 
rence, which was the signal " to engage as you come up, 
every one against his opponent, in the line as before desig- 
nated.^^ This signal, tlien, confirmed the injunction to 
keep the line, and insomuch, was an order to the Niagara 
not to pass the Caledonia. 

Now the point before us relates to these signals. Capt. 
Perry ?night have made a second or a third signal, coun^ 
termanding the effect of the first, and which would have 
obliged Capt. Elhott to pass the Caledonia much earlier 
than he actually did. On this head, Dr. Duer quotes — re- 
member, he pretends to quote the very words — from the af- 
fidavit of Dr. Usher Parsons, in the following language ^ 
"Complained (meaning the wounded officers of the Law- 
rence) that the Niagara did not come up to her station and 
close with the Queen Charlotte, although frequenthj or- 
dered by signal, &c. &c." Here, then. Dr. Parsons was 
made to swear that the wounded officers complained that 
Capt. Elliott disregarded signals frequcntli/ made — reiter- 
ated orders in fact — to close. 1 knew no such signals had 
been made, and I confess, as little importance as I attach 
to the affidavit of Dr, Parsons, which shall be analvzedin 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 45 

its place, I was not prepared to find him making a state- 
ment like this. Turning to the affidavit itself, 1 found he 
swears to nothing of the sort, the whole being merely one 
of Dr. Duer's quotations — a very different thing, as has 
been already shown, from the actual words pretended to 
be given. What Dr. Parsons really says is this — '* Com- 
plamed that the ISiagara (commanded by Cupt. Elliott) did 
not come up to her station and close with the Queen Char- 
lotte, although he had been ordered by signal ; and this 
complaint was f re quc?it 1 1/ repeated by them, &c. " 

Here we see that the "frequently" applies to the com- 
plaints, and not to the signals. As to the signal actually 
given, I have quoted it verbatim, as sworn to in terms, by 
the Perry witnesses, and as, doubtless, it was given ; and 
this ordered Capt. Elliott to keep the line, and net to break 
it. There is no doubt that this was the legitimate and obvi- 
ous meaning of the only signal given. 

Thus we find Dr. Duer again misquoting, in a new 
form. This one point, if Dr. Duer's quotation were ac- 
curate, would at once condemn Capt. Elliott, and justly 
place his life in jeopardy ; but the quotation is inaccurate. 
Some persons may think this misplacing of the word " fre- 
quently" was accidental ; it certainly may have been, but 
when a man sits down to attack others, as Dr. Duer has 
assailed both Com. Elliott and myself, there is a profound 
moral obligation to use at least ordinary care in such mat- 
ters, and ordinary care would have prevented any such 
mistake. Besides, no mistake is made by either Dr. Du- 
er, or Capt. Mackenzie, in my favor ; whereas each will 
probably be glad, when I have done with him, to take ref- 
uge in the allegation of having made many mistakes against 
me ! I pass to the next head. 

4th. The article lays down positions which its own wit- 
nesses refute. Two instances have just been given. Dr. 
Duer contends Capt. Elliott did not bring the Niagara 
within reach of the enemy's shot. Capt. Turner says 
fault was found with him, because he did not come into 
close action, as soon as he might have done. No man in 
his senses would use those words concerning one who did 
not come into close action at all. Mr. Turner has other 
testimony to the same point, which I reserve for Captain 



46 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 

Mackenzie. Dr. Duer says Dr. Parsons swears that the 
wounded officers complained that Capt. Elhott disregarded 
signals frequentli/ made ; Dr. Parsons'sown affidavit con- 
tradicts the statement. Other proof, and plenty of it too, 
might be adduced on this point, but it would make this 
pamphlet too long. 

5th. It was written with a direct intention to deceive, or 
with a carelessness of facts that is but little less culpable, 
when it is remembered that character was connected with 
its statements. The truth of this charge has already been 
shown. Why was the closing part of the note about the 
boats omitted, if the intention was to deal fairly. Let us 
examine the question. 

Capt. Perry passed from one vessel to another, in a boat, 
during the battle. Many persons — most persons perhaps 
— fancied this a heroic act,^erse, without reference to the 
motive. To me it did not thus seem. I knew that boats 
were almost always in motion, in general actions at sea, 
and I believed, and still believe that Capt. Perry probably 
ran less personal risk, while in that boat, than he ran at 
any other period of the battle. The fire from the enemy 
had greatly lessened at the time, he was three hundred 
yards from their guns, even according to Capt. Macken- 
zie, and was crossing the range of their aim. It is scarce- 
ly probable a single gun was trained on the boat, more es- 
pecially as Capt. Perry was dressed in a round-about, and 
could not be recognised. But, admitting that the act, ^cr 
se, was what has been pretended — on what principle is 
Capt. Perry to be lauded more than others who did the 
same thins^ 1 Mr. Ma<rrath liad ^one from the Niagara to 
the Lawrence in a boat, before Capt. Perry went from the 
Lawrence to the Niagara. Capt. Elliott pulled along the 
whole line, nearly twice, in the same boat, and the six men 
who composed the crew incurred the risks of all these 
movements ; that of Capt. Perry's, and those of Capt. El- 
liott's. Other boats passed from^vessel to vessel. It has 
been said that Capt. Elliott was not exposed in the boat, 
the same as Capt. Perry. The note in the history says 
nothing about this fact, for the object being merely to di- 
rect the public mind to the real merit of Perry's conduct, 
it was unnecessary ; but, in point of fact, I believe Capt. 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 47 

Elliott took the boat inside the Lawrence, while going- as- 
tern, and he was in uniform. I believe this to be the fact, 
because Com. Elliott distinctly affirms it, and I have found 
his statements of the battle mainly corroborated by the tes- 
timony ; because the late Capt. Stevens admitted to me 
personally, that Capt. Elliott pulled along side the Trippe, 
which was under the fire of grape at the time ; and be- 
cause the present Capt. Montgomery, and sailing master 
Tatem, both officers of the Niagara, say that from the rel- 
ative positions of the two brigs, at the time, they think 
Capt. Elliott 7nust have gone inside. Now if the claims of 
Perry be reduced to the mere gallantry of exposing his per- 
son in the boat, his friends cannot deny that others must 
share the credit with him. What is his exploit compared 
to Capt. Piatt's on Lake Champlain, who pulled about un- 
der the fire of a ship like the Confiance, ear/y in the ac- 
tion,a.nd had a twenty-four pound shot actually pass through 
his boat. If this act is to make a hero, there are other he- 
roes besides Perry ; and better heroes, too, if quality is to 
be estimated by risks. But I give Perry high credit for 
this particular act, though it is altogether in connection 
with his motive for changing his vessel. It was a noble 
thing to fight on board one vessel until she was a wreck, 
and then to seek another to struggle on for victory — but it 
was a far inferior deed simply to pass from one vessel to an- 
other in a boat. Now, I give Perry full credit for the first 
in the note ; it was in truth the object of the note, and I 
had a right to demand if my note were quoted at all, that 
it should be quoted in reference to this object, that the 
reader might judge for himself. Dr. Duer has not done 
me this simple justice ; besides mutilating the part he does 
quote, making me impute acts to Capt. Elliott that I do 
not impute to him, he omits entirely the close of the note, 
thus misleading the reader as to its drift. If this were 
not a direct intention to deceive, what was it ? — it was cer- 
tainly a carelessness of facts, that, under the circumstan- 
ces, was scarcely less culpable. 

I put also the omission of the pointed part of Mr. Tur- 
ners's affidavit, the insertion of the word " frequently" into 
that of Dr. Parsons, in a place where it was not used, thus 
essentially altering the sense, and all the other instances 



48 BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 

of departure from facts that I have cited, most especially 
that where Dr. Duer affirms that Gen. Towson planned 
and conducted the enterprise in 1812, into this same cate- 
gory. I might increase the Ust, but enough has been shown 
to estabhsh the point, which completes my case as against 
this critic. In this instance, however, as in that of Mr. 
Kurges's, I shall answer most of his testimony and state- 
ments, in answering those of Capt. Mackenzie, to whose 
Biography of Perry I now come. 

Capt. Mackenzie is, in some respects at least, an antago- 
nist worthy of an old sailor, in a controversy of this sort. 
I am aware that Dr. Duer was once in the navy, but I 
doubt if he ever knew the names of the running gear of an 
Albany sloop. Capt. Mackenzie certainly knows too 
much of a ship to make the mist;dves into which my 
other critics hav^e fallen. 

' Against Capt. Mackenzie's Biography I make the fol- 
lowing objections. 1st, It is not what a biography ought 
to be, but is an ex parte statement of facts, keeping the most 
and the best evidence out of view. 2d, It cooly accuses 
Capt. Elliott, whose name is so closely interwoven with 
the life of his subject, of acts, the unequivocal evidence 
of the falsehood of which accusations, was in the posses- 
sion of Capt. Mackenzie when he brought them, and this 
in a form that renders it difiicult to believe he did not see 
the whole case; 3d — he contradicts his own witnesses; 
4th — he constantly contradicts the best evidence the case 
allows, on altogether insufficient grounds ; 5th — he is 
grossly and absurdly illogical ; 6th — he has manifested an 
indifference to justice, which is discreditable to any writer, 
and which approaches an indifference to truth. 

I come now to the proofs of what I have said. The 
charges are serious, and should be clearly established. Of 
my ability to make them out, however, I entertain no more 
doubt', than I feel what must be the consequences to 
Capt. Mackenzie, in the minds of all cjear headed and 
upright men. This controversy was not of my seeking ; 
for years have I rested under the imputations that these 
persons have brought against me, and I now strike a blow 
in behalf of truth, not from any deference to a public 
opinion that, in my judgment, has not honesty enough to 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 49 

feel much interest in the exposure of duplicity and artifice, 
but that my children may point to tiie facts, with just 
pride that they had a father who dared to stem popular 
prejudice, in order to write truth. A great clamor has been 
raised against Com. Elliott, under the influence of party 
feeling, and while one half the nation has been made to 
immolate him, without examination, the other has not 
shown a disposition to defend, I cannot see why others 
might not have detected the character of most of the evi- 
dence on which this has been done, as well as myself. It 
was accessible, vulnerable in all its parts, and there was a 
higij moral necessity for examining previously to condemn- 
ing. The mighty public of this great country, which is 
but another word for the repubhc, did not feel this neces- 
sity, and I do not hesitate to say it has decided without 
inquiry. The injury done Capt. Elliott is not easily meas- 
ured. That he is now suffering under the effects of this 
precipitate judgment, in more ways than one, I hold to be 
evident; but he is fortunate that he has escaped so lio^htly. 
Let it be imagined, for a moment, that he had assumed the 
responsibility of executing three men without a trial, and 
then fancy the result ! His life, justly or unjustly, would 
have been the forfeit. Such are the penalties of error ; and 
every citizen should remember that while there is nothing 
which is more formidable, which more closely assimilates 
men to their Creator, than a just and virtuous public opinir-", 
there is nothing more miserably contemptible, in a moral 
point of view at least, and which more closely assimilates 
them to the lowest beings of darkness, than when they join 
in supporting an unjust clamor, equally without examina- 
tion, and without remorse. I say this with emphasis, for I 
believe Com. Elliott has been, in many respects at least, a 
greatly ill used man, and I never expect to receive the 
atonement for the wrong that has been done myself in 
connection with this affair. Calumny may be refuted and 
rebuked; but it is never wholly eft'aced. 

No man has had a larger share in injuring both Com. 
Elliott and myself than Capt. Mackenzie, and I now pro- 
pose to prove how loosely and falsely he has endeavored 
to rob us of our characters. 

Capt. Mackenzie's principal charge against me was that 
5 



50 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE, 

I had endeavored to build up the reputation of Com. Elliott, 
at the expense of that of Com. Perry. This charge of 
itself, would not amount to much, as justice might, and in 
some measure does require such a course, in this very dis- 
cussion ; though it did not in the history I have written ; 
but Capt. Mackenzie leaves the impression that I have done 
this with dishonest views. So far as I am concerned, 
Capt. Mackenzie has respected appearances a little ; but 
as regards Com. Elliott, he has thrown them aside alto- 
gether, and I have no hesitation in saying has written of 
that officer sundry as atrocious libels — 1 use the word un- 
derstandingly, and mean untenable calumnies — as are 
easily to be found coming from any man who has claims 
to be deemed a gentleman. Com. Elliott is living, and 
might defend himself; but 1 can scarcely touch the subject 
at all, without vindicating that officer, as it might be inci- 
dentally, from some of the grossest of these aspersions. — 
As my aim will be to show how utterly worthless is this 
biography of Perry, so far as it relates to the battle of Lake 
Erie, any thing that proves its true character forms a legiti- 
mate part of my argument, whether it strictly applies to 
my own account of the events or not. In this way, then, 
I shall treat the subject. To come to the points : 

1st. Capt. Mackenzie's book is not what a biography 
ought to be, but is an ex parte statement of facts, keeping 
the most and best evidence entirely out of view. 

The only material accusation against Com. Elliott, in 
relation to the battle, was that he kept the Niagara too long 
astern of the Caledonia, and that he did not close early 
enough effectually to succour the Lawrence. Messrs. 
Burges, Duer and Mackenzie add to this, that Capt. Elliott 
did not bring the Niagara into close action at all ; though 
neither Com. Perry, nor the best of his witnesses, took that 
ai-round. Now, in the nature of things, the officers of the 
Niagara were the best witnesses of Capt. Elliott's conduct, 
in such circumstances, that the case afforded. They surely 
knew what the vessel did ; whether she were under fire or 
not ; what injuries she received, and v ho was hurt, better 
than those who were enveloped in smoke at a distance. 
Caeteris paribus, they were, as a rule, the best witnesses of 
the facts. But other things were not equal ; they were 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 51 

essentially the best witnesses on the score of intelligence, 
and on the score of feeling. It was a fact that could not 
w^ell escape one as familiar with the service by association, 
as myself, that, as a whole, the officers of the Niagara 
were the superiors of the officers of the Lawrence, in the 
way of intelligence. On this point, though it is entitled 
to consideration, X am not induced to lay much stress ; still I 
hear from all quarters, that three of the officers of the Law- 
rence, who are among Capt. Perry's most prominent wit- 
nesses, are or were men of capacities so low, as to render 
their opinions of very little value. It is a fact more avail- 
able as an argument, and one that I allowed to have its just 
influence, that the officers of the Lawrence had not the 
experience., of the officers of the Niagara. On board the 
latter, in addition to her lieutenants and master, were 
Messrs. Magrath and Brevoort, the purser, and a captain in 
the army acting as marine officer. Mr. Magrath had been 
a lieutenant in the navy, and had resigned only four years 
before, and would have been the senior of Perry, himself, 
had he retained his commission. This gentleman was a 
man of^talents and a capital seaman. In the latter, or, 
indeed in the other capacity, he probably had no superior 
in that squadron. Capt. Brevoort, I beUeve had been a 
sailor in youth — at all events, whether actually accustomed 
to the sea, or not, he was accustomed to the lake. 1 saw 
him myself, in 1809, on Lake Erie, in command of the 
Adams, a brig belonging to the war department — the same 
that the British captured and called the Detroit — and I 
heard that he was several years employed in this duty, 
being, at the time, a lieutenant in the army. This gen- 
tleman was put in the squadron on account of his experi- 
ence. 

Now, were there merely the preponderance in favor of 
the officers of tlie Niagara, which the characters, and ex- 
perience of these two gentlemen would give, it would be 
sufficient, and would be so adjudged by any court in Chris- 
tendom : but there are still other circumstances to turn the 
scales more in favor of their testimony. 

The officers of the Lawrence — or some of them — con- 
tradict their commander, and of course each other, while 
those of the Niagara, in the main, agree. Then, on the 






53 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE* 

score of feeling, the circumstances are in favor of the offi- 
cers of the Niagara. The Lawrence, after sniFering very 
severely struck ; and this in a battle, in which all the 
enemy were subsequently captured, and the Lawrence 
herself retaken. Whatever may have been the gallantry 
of her crew, and the circumstances which led to such a 
result, the 10th Sept, as regards the Lawrence, was a 
defeat, ft is easy to see that men so circumstanced might 
not be rigidly just. On the other hand, the Niagara was 
the principal agent in turning the fortunes of the day. It 
mattered not, to her officers, whether this were done under 
Perry or Elliott; they were actively employed. The 
Niagara, too, met with a heavier comparative loss in this 
battle, than was sustained by any American vessel in that 
war, the Lawrence and Essex excepted. She had not 
been engaged in child's play^ at all ; and there was noth- 
ing particularly to disturb the feelings of her crew. As 
between them, and the crew of the Lawrence, the question 
of feeling was altogether in their favor. Though a dispute 
existed between them and the people of the other brig — 
this question was strictly between Perry and Elliott. Both 
had been their commanders in this very battle, and it is 
not easy to suppose, thai, among all the brave men in the 
Niaofara, men who were the near witnesses of that which 
passed, one could not be found to say so, if he fancied that 
Capt. Elliott had disgraced his brig, and Perry alone had 
saved them all from reproach. 

In whatever way, then, we view this point, the officers 
of the Niagara were better witnesses, than those of the 
Lawrence. In addition to this, they materially outnumber 
them. 

In the face of these facts, Capt. Mackenzie suppresses 
the testimony in favor of Capt. Elliott, while he lays 
before the world, as much of that against him as suited his 
own purposes. If this be not reducing history to an ex 
parte statement, it is not easy to say what it is. I shall 
not dwell further on this point, here, as its effects will be 
noticed as I proceed. 

2d. It cooly accuses Capt. Elliott of acts, the unequivo- 
cal evidence of the untruth of which was in the possession 
of Capt. Mackenzie when he brought the accusations^ 



Battle of lake erie, 53 

and this in a form that renders it difficult to believe he 
did not see the whole case. I am conscious this is a very 
grave charge ; but it shall be clearly made out. 

Capt. Mackenzie justly represents Com. Elliott as com- 
plaining of the official report of Capt. Perry. He certainly 
does insist that the Niagara ought to have been put in 
close action, at an hour earlier than J past 2, the time 
when Perry says she succeeded in closing. The fact is 
immaterial to the present point. It is admitted, however, 
that Com Elliott docs and did complain that injustice was 
done to his brig and himself, in this particular. In allusion 
to these complaints, and some effijrts made by Capt. Elliott 
to get the report altered, Capt. Mackenzie says in a note, 
pages 20 — 21, Vol. 2d, Biog.— 

" After such objections to the official report, and such 
effi)rts to procure it to be made more favorable to him, it 
is singular to find Capt. Elliott, before the Court of Inquiry 
into his conduct in 1815, when the British official account 
and the sentence of the court-martial on Commodore Bar- 
clay had made him appear so much more disadvantage- 
ously, strenuously endeavoring to substantiate this very 

repOl^t, AND MAKING A QUESTION AS TO ITS ACCURACY A 
LEADING ONE TO ALMOST EVERY WITNEvSS." 

Let US look at the character of this charge. It distinctly 
accuses Capt. Elliott of seeking refuge, before the Court of 
Inquiry, against the supposed English accusations, in Capt* 
Perry's official report, after he had decried that report^ and 
denied its accuracy. This charge embraces several va- 
rieties of moral turpitude. It is virtually accusing Capt. 
Elliott of deliberate falsifications of the truth, by seeking 
refuge in contradictory facts, as he found it convenient ; 
it is a charge of a meanness so atrocious as to render him 
unworthy of the commission he holds, if true ; and it leaves 
the inference that the British court put his conduct in a 
worse point of view than any Anierican court, without 
mentioning the fact that even Capt. Perry's icitnesses ex- 
onerate Capt. Elliott from this imaginary imputation. — 
The two first accusations, however, form the gist of the 
calumny. 

So far from Capt. Elliott's having been guilty of the 
glaring deception and deirrading meanness with which 
5* 



54 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE, 

Capt. Mackenzie has thus openly charged hmi, in a book 
deliberately written, and widely circulated, if not consci" 
entiously prepared ; there is the clearest evidence of its 
untruth, and evidence that was in Capt, Mackenzie's pos- 
session at the time he wrote ; evidence that he ought to 
have consulted, and which he has given the public reason 
to suppose he did consult. 

I write with an exemplified copy of the record of this 
Court before me. This record has been repeatedly pub- 
lished, and if Capt. Mackenzie does not refer to it, in this 
very note of his, to what evidence does he refer? It is the 
only proof in existence, of the questions put by Capt. Elliott, 
while it is complete on that head. I now extract from it, 
every question that this officer asked the witnesses^ viz — 

Lt. NeIso?i Webster — April 24th, 1815. 

jBy Capt. Elliott. — "Did the Niagara at any time, during 
the action, attempt to make off from the British fleet V 

" What was the distance from the Lawrence to the Niag- 
ara, when the firing commenced from the enemy V 

" What was the situation of both fleets when the action 
commenced on our part 1 and what time did I order the 
Caledonia out of the line 1 and how soon afterwards did I 
place my vessel ahead of the Lawrence I and what appear- 
ed to be the situation of the British fleet V 

•' Was not my helm up, and the Niagara standing di- 
rectly for the enemy's fleet, when Capt. Perry came on 
board V 

" What was the situation of the gun-boats when I left 
the Niagara, and how were they disposed of when I reach- 
ed the head of the enemy's line with them ?" 

" How did the Lawrence bear of the Niagara when Capt. 
Perry came on board, and what distance was she from the 
Niagara 1" 

Lt. Yarnall — one of the Perry witnesses 

By Cajyt. Elliott. — Did the Niagara, at any time du- 
ring the action, attempt to make off* from the British fleet 1 

Lt. Yarnell. " No." (This was the strongest witness 
against Coi^X. Elliott.) 



BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 5$ 

** What was the distance from the Lawrence to ihe Ni- 
agarij, when the firing commenced from the enemy ?" 

'• What was the situation of the gun-boats when I Jeft 
the Niagara, and how were they disposed of when I reach- 
ed the head of the enemy's line with them T' 

" What was the estabhshed order of the battle, and is 
the sketch now shown you a correct one T" 

"What were the observations of Lts. Turner and Holdup, 
when speaking to you of tiie actiou i" 

" When I was passing the Lawrence in the boat did you 
not come to the gangway, and ask me to bring the boat 
along side, as you were sinking V 

" Did you not on the return of the fleet to Erie, discov- 
ering that there was an altercation between Capts. Perry 
and Elliott, meet Midshipman Page on the beach, and ^ay 
to him that there was the deuce to pay about the action, but 
that as for your part, you had always given each of those 
officers an equal share of credit I" 

" How was the wind from the beginning to the end of 
the action V^ 

Lt. Webster — re-examined- — April2ot7i, 1815. 

Si/ Capt. Elliott. — ^" How far was the Caledonia from 
the Niagara, from the commencement of the enemy's fire,. 
until 1 ordered her out of the linel" 

" What was the distance from the Lawrence to the 
Niagara^ from the commencement of the action until T or- 
dered the Caledonia out of the line 1 and did not the ene- 
my''s shot take effect in a few minutes after the action 
began ^ upon the Niagara'' s spars and rigging?'''' 

Answer. — "At no time during that period were they 
more than two hundred yards apart — the enemy's shot 
took effect very soon, and shot away one of the fore-top- 
raast back-stays." 

" Did not the enemy's fire appear to be directed at the 
gara's spars and rigging V 

" What distance was I from the Lawrence when I pass- 
ed her gaining the head of the line V 

"Just before you w^ere wounded,, what was the relative 
positions of the Lawrence and Niagara ?" 

" What damage did the Niagara sustain in the action V 



I- Nia 



B6 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 

*' Was the Niagara at any time during the action, from 
lialf to three quarters of a mile on the weather bow of the 
Lawrence after I ordered the Caledonia out of the line 1'* 

" Did you observe the enemy's ship Queen Charlotte 
bear up and run away from the Niagara, and if so, when 1" 

Midshipman Montgomei'i/, 

By Capt. Elliott.—'-'' Did the Niagara, at any time 
during the action, attempt to make her escape from the 
British fleet 1" 

" What was the distance from the Lawrence to the Ni- 
agara, when the enemy's fire commenced 1 and what dis- 
tance was the Lawrence, Caledonia and Niagara, from 
the enemy's fleet T' 

" What was the distance from the Lawrence to the Ni- 
a«>-ara when we commenced our fire 1 and what distance 
was each of those vessels from the enemy's fleet ]" 

" What was the distance from the Lawrence to the Cale» 
donia, and from the Caledonia to the Niagara ? and what 
distance was each of those vessels from the enemy's fleet, 
when I ordered the Caledonia to bear up and let me pass 
her?" 

" When T ordered the Caledonia to bear up, where did I 
place the Niagara, and where was she when Capt. Perry 
came on board V 

" When Capt Perry came on board the Niagara, did he 
not find her helm up, and that vessel standing direct for the 
enemy's ship Detroit ?" 

"What was the situation of the gun-boats when I left 
the Niagara ? and how were they disposed of when brought 
to the head of the enemy's line?" 

" When I hailed the gun-boats, did I not order them to 
make sail and keep close under my stern ?" 

" What was the established order of battle, and is the 
sketch now shown you a correct view of the situation of 
both fleets at the time stated 1" 

" When Capt. Perry came on board the Niagara, was 
she half a mile on the weather bow of the Lawrence ?" 

" Did the Lawrence and Caledonia, at any time in the 
action, bear up, and leave the Niagara with her main-top- 
sail aback, or leave her on a wind V^ 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 57 

" Did Capt. Elliott or Capt. Perry bring the Niagara 
into close action 1" 

Answer. — " The Niagara had dosed with the enemy 
some time before Capt. Perry came on board V 

" Did not the wind die away almost to a calm when the 
action was pretty well on 1" 

" Did the enemy's ship, Queen Charlotte bear up to 
avoid the Niagara's fire, and if so, at what time V* 

Mr. Adams. 

By Capt. Elliott. — ^'■Did the Lawrence and Caledonia^ 
at any time during the action^ run down within musket shot 
of the enemy., and leave the Niagara firing at the enemy'' s 
smaller vessels at a distanceV 

Mr. Tat em. 

By Capt. Elliott. — " What conversation passed be- 
tween me and Capt. Perry when J returned on board the 
Niatfara V 

** How near was Capt. Elliott to the Lawrence when 
passing herl" 

" Was the Niagara three quarters of a mile on the bow 
of the Lawrence, when Capt. Perry came on board 1" 

" Was not the helm up, and the Niagara bearing down 
on the enemy when Capt. Perry came on board 1" 

*' Had you been an officer on board the Lawrence, would 
you have supposed there was any deficiency in the conduct 
of Capt. Elliott in coming to the relief of the Lawrence T* 

Mr. Cummings — April 26th, 1815. 
No questions put by Capt. Elliott. 

' Lt. Forrest, of Lawrence. 

No questions by Capt. Elliott. 

This closes the record, every question put by Capt. 
Elliott, having been here given. Here, then, is unanswer- 
able proof that Capt. Elliott has not been guilty of the 
falsehood and meanness ascribed to him by Capt. Mac- 
kenzie. So far from making the truth of Capt. Perry's 
report "a leading one (question) to almost every witness,'* 
he asks it of no witness at all. On the contrary, many of 



58 • BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 

his questions, most of those that refer to the distance, one 
or two of which I have put in itahcs, have a direct and 
obvious tendency to show that the part of the report of 
which Capt. EHiott complained, viz — that he did not get 
into close action until ^ past two, was inaccurate. Instead 
of falling back on Capt. Perry's report, then, to cover him- 
self, Capt Elliott, by implication, would seem rather to 
question its accuracy in these very interrogatories. 

So much for Capt. Mackenzie's accuracy, in a grave 
matter materially affecting character. Did he mean to 
utter falsehood, to criminate Capt. Elliott without cause, 
with all the evidence in his own hands'? A severe judge 
might hold him to this issue, and it would greatly em- 
barrass this accusing gentleman to escape the conse- 
quences ; but I have a little charity for him. I think Capt. 
Mackenzie's mind to be ve?y singularly constituted, and 
that he did not mean all he has so clearly said. So many 
mstances of this peculiarity of moral conformation have 
forced themselves on my notice, as to leave no doubt of its 
existence. Capt. Mackenzie can only see one side of a 
question. He is a man of prejudice and denunciation, and 
he accuses, less under evidence, than under convictions. 
Were he inspired, this last might do well enough ; but, as 
he is only a man, and quite as often wrong as right, fearful 
consequences have followed from his mistakes. 

I take it, when called on to defend this charge against 
Capt. Elliott, it will be done in this way. He considers 
the Court of 1815, a white-masking court — he even inti- 
mates this much, pretty plainly — and as the court does put 
the question he mentions, he ascribes it to Capt. Elliott, 
although the charge is purely personal, Capt. Elliott could 
not prevent the court from asking what questions it pleas- 
ed, the question was very pertinent as asked by the court, 
and this court had Henry Wheaton for a Judge Advocate, 
and old Alexander Murray, the father of the service, and 
the late Captain Evans, and the late Com. George 
Rodgers for its members. In a word, I suppose Capt. 
Mackenzie's meaning was that the court were the tools of 
Capt. Elliott, and as they asked the questions, in a moral 
sense he asked the questions. If Capt. Mackenzie is not 
allowed the benefit of this apology, miserable and insuffi- 



BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 59 

cient — nay puerile as it is — I see no other to give him. 
The accusation was affirmative, should rest on clear,affirm- 
ative evidence, and of this there is not a particle. I shall 
unansvverablj show, as I proceed, that Capt. Mackenzie 
had the record before him when he made this charge. 

Some may say I assume this apology, and this moral 
conformation of Mr. Mackenzie's mind. I certainly as- 
sume the apology, and I do it in charity ; without it, he 
would be a bare-faced inventor of calumny of the grossest 
character ; with it, his case has a httle palliation. As to 
the moral peculiarity, T can give very many instances; I 
shall give some before I have done with Capt. 3Iackenzie. 
Take a strikino- one from the late investioation of the ca- 
tastrophe of the Somers. Mr. Spencer is said to have told 
Mr. Wales that he had about twenty engaged in the mutiny. 
Upon this Capt. Mackenzie distinctly tells the Court of 
Inquiry he had reason to infer that at least tsvei^Xy men and 
boys were engaged in the mutiny. Nine hundred and 
ninety-nine ordinary minds in a thousand, would have said 
*' at mosV for Capt. Mackenzie's " at least.'''' Who ever 
heard of a conspirator's underrating his force to a recruit 1 
— who, but Capt. Mackenzie "? The affair of the mutiny 
is a series of similar blunders, as might be easily demon- 
strated. Look at the case of the Paul Jones's sword, as 
exposed by mjself, in Grahams' Magazine, article Dale. 
In that instance Capt. Mackenzie did not scruple to wound 
the feelings of an honorable family, on ex parte statements, 
and on preconceived opinions, when a letter sent to that 
family, might have put him in possession of facts that 
would have saved him the exposure of his gross ignorance 
of even public professsional events. P[ad I room, instances, 
M'ithout stint, could be furnished of this one-sided propen- 
sity of Capt. Slidell Mackenzie, and this, in matters, too, 
that he has himself thrust upon the world ! 

I could furnish much more proof to establish charge 2d, 
but some of it will appear incidentally, in making out the 
other points. 

3d. He contradicts his own witnesses. Capt. Mackenzie 
falls into this childish error, constantly ; but I will cite two 
or three strong and simple instances, only, to support my 
point. 



60 BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 

The question connected with the Lake Erie controversy 
was one purely of distance. No one pretends tlmt Capt. 
Elliott showed personal fear, a silly and totally unsup- 
ported tale about his dodging a shot, and which is distinctly 
proved to relate to another transaction, excepted ; but the 
charge is that he kept the Niagara at too great a distance 
from the enemy. This distance is disputed ; Capt. Perry's 
witnesses making it greater, Capt. Elliott's less ; though 
neither make it as great as my three assailants. Of course, 
Capt. Mackenzie wishes to have it thought he has testi- 
mony for what he says ; and, in his appendix, he gives 
the evidence on which he relies ; saying nothing about that 
of the other side, however. The following is the list of the 
witnesses of Capt. Mackenzie, viz : — 

Messrs. Turner 
Parsons 
Stevens 
Forrest 
Champlin 
Breese 
Brownell 

Taylor 

The affidavits of all these gentlemen, Mr. Forrest ex- 
cepted, are furnished. From Mr. Forrest a simple letter, 
unsworn to, is given. There was no distance so likely to 
be ascertained with accuracy, as that at which the action 
commenced, if we except that when the vessels got so near 
to each other as to render mistake next to impossible. At 
the commencement of the action, there was no smoke ; all 
was attention and expectation ; the distance was actually 
measured by shot, no bad guides, and distance was the one 
thing to be ascertained. Of the eight witnesses presented 
by Capt. Mackenzie, five speak of the distance at which the 
action commenced : viz — 

Messrs. Turner 

Stevens 

Champlin 

Breese 
& 

Brownell 



BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE, 61 

Mr. Turner says — " The action began when the two 
squadrons were about a mile apart." 

Mr. Stevens says — " When the American squadron had 
approached the enemy within about a mile, and the enemy 
had commenced firino-," &c. 

Mr. Champlin says — " When we were within the dis- 
tance of a mile from the enemy, and who had commenced 
firing." &.C. 

Mr. Breese says — '*The action on Lake Erie commenced 
by a firing from the enemy's flag-ship on the Lawrence, 
at about the distance of a mile." 

Mr. Brownell says — *'When we were about a mile dis- 
tant from the enemy he commenced firing." 

After all this testimony from his own witnesses, what 
does the reader think Capt. Mackenzie says on the subject X 
Here are his words, page 231, vol. 1: — " Soon after, being 
a quarter before meridian, the enemy's flag-ship Detroit, 
tlien distant about a mile and a half^ commenced the action 
by firing a single shot at the Lawrence, which did not take 
eff*ect." Here, then, Capt. Mackenzie discredits every one 
of his own witnesses, adding ho less than one half to their 
account, although it was a question of distance, and he 
relies altogether on the opinions of these very witnesses — 
treating the matter as if out of all question they must be 
right, in a matter of distance also, in the heat and smoke 
of a battle ! Nor is this all ; he believes these very dis- 
credited witnesses when they speak of the distance the 
Niagara was from the Lawrence, though they are not only 
contradicted by Elliott's witnesses, but they contradict each 
other — and they contradict Perry himself! 

Again — Capt. Mackenzie says, page 228, vol. 1. "The 
line being formed. Perry now bore up for the enemy, dis- 
tant about six miles." Then, in a note that refers to this 
sentence he adds, — " Mr. Cooper and Mr. B urges say nine 
miles. This cannot be correct. (Very Mackenzie-like 
this !) Our squadron was sailing at the rate of two, or, at 
the most, two and a half or three knots ; and the action 
began a quarter before twelve, at the distance of a mile 
and a half. The British squadron, though hove-to, must 
have had a head-way and drift together of half a knot." 
[ take it this is a fair speciman of Capt, Mackenzie's 
6 



/ 



62 BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE* 

mind. His calculation is that of a sea-officer, as against 
two " know-nothings," and he is quite satisfied with it, 
and with himself. The authority for what the history 
says is Mr. Taylor, the sailing master of the Lawrence , 
the man whose duty it was to note this distance on the 
lo;^, who, as Cajit. Mackenzie shows himself, /or he is one 
of his most important tvit?iesses, says in his affidavit — "At 
10, A. M.,'the enemy, despairing of gainirifr the wind, hove 
to in line, with their heads to the westward, at about three 
leagues distance.^'' &c. 

To me it seemed safer, as winds are variable, and had 
been particularily so that day, to trust to the sworn state- 
ments of those who were present, when there was nothing 
connected with the fact to warp their judgments, than to 
thrust in any theory of my own. Capt. Mackenzie is so 
fond of his own opinions, that he could not refrain from the 
practice of asserting them, even at the expense of again 
contradicting his own witness ! It is proper to add, that I 
discover no evidence to show at what rate the American 
squadron was going at this time. During the action, it is 
known that the wind varied from something near, or quite, 
a calm, to a four or five knot breeze. Then I humbly 
submit, that ships, in smooth water, with their top-sails 
aback, do not have half a knot of drift and headway, in a 
two knot breeze. 

One more instance of Capt. Mackenzie's contradicting 
his own witnesses, out of many thai offer ^ must suffice. — 
Com. Turner is one of the best of his witnesses, on the 
score of rank and character. I shall now show, that Capt. 
Mackenzie has no more scruple in discrediting him, than 
in discrediting any one else. Capt. Mackenzie in a note, 
page 29, vol. 2, says — "The most 'judicious' position 
which the Niagara could have had, either for breaking the 
line or taking^ her due share in the battle, was the position 
assigned to her along side the Queen Charlotte, and at 
close quarters; a position which, be it understood, as in- 
volving the whole substance of the question, she never occu- 
pied.'''' Here Capt. Mackenzie asserts that the Niagara 
was not in close action — meaning until Capt. Perry got on 
board her. He repeatedly asserts the same thing else- 
where, but this is sufficient for our present position. 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. * G3 

In the foregoing extract Capt. Mackenzie contradicts 
Capt. Perry in two material facts, and iie contradicts Capt. 
Turner. He contradicts Capt. Perry who says distinctly 
that " At ^ past 2, the wind springing up, Capt. Elliott 
was enabled to bring his vessel, the Niagara, gallantly into 
close action'''' — and, as the Queen Charlotte and Detroit, 
and all the English vessels were near each other, it was 
not possible to be in close action with the one, without 
being in close action, as to all. But Capt. Mackenzie will 
probably insist on the notion that Capt. Perry meant Capt. 
Elliott was " ENABLED" to go into close action : not 
that he did it. Let him have the benefit of this subtlety, 
for a few minutes, then. He contradicts Capt. Perry, 
when he says that Capt. Elliott's station was at close quar- 
ters with the Queen Charlotte, for Capt. Perry himself 
says, page 251, appendix, vol. 2, Biog. tliat he issued an 
"order directing in what manner the line was to be formed : 
the several vessels to keep within half a cable's length of 
each other, and enjoining it upon the commanders to pre- 
serve their stations in the /me"~ it being a necessary con- 
sequence, that though the Niagara was ordered to direct 
her fire at the Queen Charlotte, it could only be done from 
her station astern of the Caledonia, which station she oc- 
cupied until she passed that vessel, on Capt. Elliott's own 
responsibility. It is true Capt. Perry afterwards makes it 
a charge against Capt. Elliott, that he did not attack the 
Queen Charlotte; but the proof is of the clearest nature 
that this could not be done, without violating the primary 
order to preserve the line. 

He contradicts Capt. Turner, who says " several weeks 
after this, Capt. Perry told me that Capt. Elliott wished 
him to alter that part of his official report which stated that 
the Niagara did not, until a late period of the engagement, 
GET into close action ; and asked me whether I thought 
that part of his report incorrect, as it had been agreed to 
leave the question to two commissioned officers of the fleet, 
(Lieutenant Edwards, who was present, and myself, being 
the officers selected). I answered, 1 thought that part of 
his official report was entirely correct^ to which Lt. Ed- 
wards assented." 

This is plain English. Capt. Turner shows how he 

/ 



64 BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE* 

understood the "ENABLED ;" that it meant performance, 
not mere ability to perform, and he also shows that he 
thought the statement of Capt. Perry correct, ''Couple this 
with Capt. Turner's complaint, already given, that Capt. 
Elliott did not bring his vessel, the Niagara, into close 
action, "as soon as he might have done^"* and no man can 
doubt Capt. Turner means that Capt. Elliott brought the 
Niagara into close action, though late. This Capt. Mack- 
enzie controv^erts, and, in so doing he contradicts another 
of his own .witnesses. It is time to proceed to the next 
point. 

4th. He constantly contradicts the best evidence the case 
allows, on altogether insufficient grounds. A pretence has 
been set up that only one or two men were hurt on board 
the Niagara, until Capt. Perry carried her into close action. 
The fact has been taken as proof she was not in action. 
Most of Capt. Mackenzie's witnesses say that " It was a 
received opinion in the fleet, that, previous to Commodore 
Perry's going on board the Niagara, she had^but one man 
wounded, &c." See Mr. Stevens's afKdavk, pao-e 267, 
vol. 2. 

Capt. Mackenzie does not understand that a " received 
opinion" when wrong, tells against those who entertain 
it. The only evidence he gives for supporting this "received 
opinion," is where he says — " The Niagara had two killed 
and twenty-three wounded ; all but two of the wounded 
having been struck after Capt. Perry took command of 
her, as stated by the Surgeon who attended them." 

In the first place Capt. Mackenzie and the " received 
opinion" quoted, do not agree ; one party saying one, and 
the other that two men were hurt before Capt. Perry reach- 
ed the Niagara. If out of the action, as ]\Iessrs. Duer and 
Surges contend, even these ai'e two too many. But the 
" Surgeon who attended them," says nothing of the sort. 
Dr. Parsons is meant, and here are his words : — " The 
second day after the action I attended the wounded of the 
Niagara (the Surgeon of that vessel having been sick,) and 
out of twenty cases, not more than one or two said they 
were wounded while Capt. Elliott was on board the ship.'* 
Now, Capt. Mackenzie, himself, admits that two men 
were killed, and it is to be presumed they did not tell Dr. 



\ 



\ 



BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 



65 



Parsons, " the second day after the action," when they 
** were struck." Then Dr. Parsons speaks of only twenty 
cases, and Capt. Mackenzie admits there were twenty -three 
wounded. By adding these three to the two dead men we 
take five, at once, out of Dr. Parsons's own category. Nor 
does Dr. Parsons say how many he questioned, which may 
have been after all merely the one or two who made the 
answers. Why did Dr. Parsons thus question these men'? 
Clearly iii the temper of a partisan, and the testimony 
would have been far more satisfactory had it come from a 
quarter that was free from the suspicion of wishing to put 
leading questions. Nor is Dr. Parsons's affidavit uncontra- 
dicted by even Perry himself. It SLiys — "That the wound- 
ed, from the first of their coming- down, complained that 
the Niagara (commanded by C apt. Elliott,) did not come 
up to her station and close with the Charlotte^ although he 
had been ordered by signal ; and this complaint was fre- 
quently repeated by them till the Lawrence struck, and 
repeatedly by Lieutenants Brooks, Yarnall and Claxton." 
Perry, in his official letter says — " Lieutenant Yarnall, 
first of the Lawrence, though several times wounded, re- 
fused TO QUIT THE DKCK." Hcrc he flatly contradicts Dr. 
Parson's affidavit. But, admitting Dr. Parsons's statement 
to be all that Capt. Mackenzie assumes it to be, it is con- 
tradicted, in its eftect — I pretend not lo say how often Jack 
may have hoaxed him, to flatter his obvious desire to make 
out a case against Com. Elliott — by witnesses enough to 
overwhelm him, and they the best witnesses of which the 
case admits. 

Dr. Barton, the Surgeon of the Niagara, to whom the 
wounded presented themselves in the battle, itself, says — 
*' The number of wounded on board the Niagara has been 
falsely estimated at twenty, and it has been stated that only 
one or two were wounded previous to Capt. Perry's coming 
on board. The exact number, including those dangerously 
or severely wounded was twenty-seven, (this takes four 
more out of Dr. Parsons's category) and the slight cases 
not reported, must have amounted to six or eight more." 
(Six or eight more out of the category.) Five were killed 
during the action, and a iew died soon after ; one man was 
mortally wounded on the berth-deck very early in the con- 
6* 



66 BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE* 

test by a shot which passed through both sides of the ves- 
sel." — "The precise period of ('apt. Perry's coming on 
board I do not know, but I firmly believe that more than 
half the above number were wounded before he boarded 
us. This I well recollect, that when Lt. Webster was 
brought below, the ward-room and steerage were crowded 
with wounded, and I have heard him say that at the time 
he was knocked down, the Commodore had not come on 
board." 

"We will now turn to Lt. Webster's testimony before the 
Court of Inquiry, in 1815. Capt. Elliott asked this offi- 
cer — " Was not my helm up, and the Niagara standing 
directly for the enemy's fleet, when Capt. Perry came on 
board." To Avhich the answer was — '* / was heloiv and 
can not say." This being below refers to the time he was 
knocked down, and completely covers Dr. Barton's case. 
Mr. Webster makes a similar answer to another question 
which referred to the time when Capt. Perry came on board. 
Nor is this all. This gentleman says, in answer to a ques- 
tion about the injuries received by the Niagara, with other 
things, " There were two men killed from my division, 
before I went below, and a number of men wounded on 
board." 

Now all this is natural and clear. Mr. Webster's an- 
swers had no reference to the report about the 'cne man 
wounded,' for in 1815, this point had not got into the con- 
troversy. It first appears in 1818. 

Capt. Montgomery, formerly of the Niagara, says — " I 
was much surprised, sir, to observe in an anonymous 
pamphlet recently published, a statement that not more 
than three or four v/ere killed or wounded at the time of 
Com. Perry's coming en board the Niagara, as I am most 
firmly impressed with the belief that there could not have 
been more than that number injured subsequent to your 
leaving the Niagara,'''' 6^c. 

Peter Perry, Boatswain of the Niagara, swears—*' I am. 
firmly of belief that not more than four or five men were 
injured by the enemy's shot on board the Niagara after 
Com. Perry came on board V 

Mr. Tatem, Master's-mate of the Niagara, has assured 
me personally, that he thinks quite half, if not more of the 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 67 

wounded men received their injuries before Capt. Perry 
reached them. 

If testimony can dispose of a question, this may be deem- 
ed disposed of I have given all the evidence on the one 
side, viz: *' rumors" among Capt. Perry's friends, and Dr* 
Barton's statements ; and the best evidence of which the 
case will admit, on the other ! 

Take another instance of the manner in which 
Captain Mackenzie offends, under charge Fourth. — 
He says, page 245, vol. I. — '^ At half past two, 
when Perry left the Lawrence, tlie Niagara was pas- 
sing her weather or larboard beam, at the distance of 
nearly half a mile. The breeze had freshened ; her main- 
top-sail was filled, and she was passing the British squad- 
ron rapidly." Such is Capt. Mackenzie's theory of the 
conduct of Capt- Elliott. His book has many assertions 
to the same effect, presented in different terms, all going to 
&how that the Niagara was passing nearly half a mile to 
windward of the Lawrence, which vessel, according to his 
own showing, was three hundred and fifty yards to wind- 
ward of the enemy. At page 235, vol. 1, he says — " Capt. 
Elliott did not, however, follow in the Niagara, (that is, fol- 
low the Caledonia to leeward, when she bore up to let Capt, 
Elliott pass,) but sheered to windward, and by brailing up 
his jib and backing his main-top-sail, balanced the efforts 
of his sails so as to keep his vessel stationary, and prevent 
her approaching the enemy." 

This is the substance of Capt. Elliott's delinquency^ 
agreeably to Capt. Mackenzie. In order to understand 
the point the better, I will state what I conceive to be the 
facts. 

The wind was light at south east. The English were 
lying-to, in a close line ahead, looking to the southward 
and westward. Perry formed his line astern and to wind- 
ward, and bore down with the wind abeam. Two schoo- 
ners, the Scorpion and Ariel, led the Americans, passing a 
little to windward of the route of the main line. Then 
came the Lawrence, Caledonia, and Niagara, with inter- 
vals of half a cable's length between them. Tiie rest of 
the line is of no importance here. 

The enemy had many long guns, and, as the Americans 
came within their reach, they opened, principally on the 



68 bat-tle op lake erie. 

Lawrence, the nearest of the large vessels. Fmding he 
was approaching too slowly, and suffering heavily, Perry 
made sail in the Lawrence, to get the sooner within reach 
of his carronades. The witnesses who testify against 
Capt. Elliott, evidently think the latter ought to have imi- 
tated tliis manoeuvre, as the wind would have carried the 
Niagara down as well and as fast as it did the Lawrence. 
They also appear to think that as Capt, Elliott was direct- 
ed to engage the Charlotte, which ship shifted her berth a 
short distance further to the westward, within the first half 
hour, that.it v as his duty to follow her at all hazards. — 
They overlook the all important fact that Capt. Perry had 
formally laid down aline of battle, that he had " enjoined 
it upon the commanders to preserve their stations in 
THE line" ; that the orders to engage different vessels 
meant to fire at those vessels //-o/w the line, and that the first 
object was to preserve the line, as given, which alone could 
give concentration and order to the attack. If Perry led 
ahead of his own order of battle, he was irresponsible, but 
others would not have been. 

The Lawrence, sailing better, left the Caledonia astern, 
the latter being a merchant brig armed for the cruise. — 
This necessarily kept the Niagara astern also, which brig, 
following directly in the wake of the Caledonia, was oblig- 
ed to brace her main-top-sail sharp aback, in order to pre- 
vent going into her. These were the 07ili/ occasions, 
while Capt. Elliott was in her, that the Niagara had her 
top-sail aback and jib brailed. Capt. Perry was present, 
knew best how much he wanted assistance, and was 
bound, on every principle of military service, to take the re- 
sponsibility of changing his own line of battle. If he was 
not there for such a purpose, when necessary, he was not 
there for the purposes of a commander-in-chief, It was 
clearly his diiti/ to have ordered the Niagara to pass the 
Caledonia, if circumstances required it ; and it was the du- 
ty of Capt Elliott to remain where he had been placed, 
until circumstances induced him to think his commander 
could not control events. Any other course would have 
led to the grossest insubordination, and Capt. Elliott might 
have been ruined in the event of an accident. There is no 
principle more unjust, than to hold an officer to the respon- 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 69 

sibility of obedience and disobedience, in the same breath. 

After a time, Capt. Elliott determined to pass the Cale- 
donia, on his own responsibility. He says he thought 
Perry must have been killed. He did pass, steering direct- 
ly in the Lawrence's wake, and making sail ; not throwing 
his top-sail aback, and luffing away to windward, as insis- 
ted on, by Capt. Mackenzie. But there was little or no 
wind, and time passed before the Niagara could close. At 
length the breeze freshened, when the Lawrence, a wreck, 
dropped astern and to leeward. The Niagara passed her 
to windward. The Caledonia, which vessel having pivot 
guns, and lier enemy nearer to leeward, had kept more off, 
followed to leeward of the Lawrence. The English now 
began to draw ahead, also, and the Niagara made more 
sail, and steered for the head of the English line, where 
alone were to be found their two largest vessels. Perry 
now followed the Niagara in a boat, and reached her just 
as she was coming up abeam of the Detroit and Charlotte, 
distant from a thousand to fifteen hundred feet, or about as 
near as the Lawrence had ever got. 

Nothing is easier than to show the general truth of thisr 
statement, by the best testimony the case will allow. Capt. 
Perry says Capt. Elliott came into close action at half past 
two, unless the " ENABLED" is to be taken as a miser- 
able and disreputable subterfuge. Capt. Turner confirms 
it, unequivocally, in two distinct passages of his affidavit. 
Mr. Packett is a witness much vaunted by the other side, 
though it has never seen fit to publish his statement^ on the 
plea that he is dead ! Messrs. Yarnall, Forrest and Stevens 
are dead, and the statements of the two first have been of- 
ten printed since their deaths, and those of the latter no 
doubt would be, if there was occassion. Whatever may 
have been the true motive for suppressing Mr. Packett's ev- 
idence, it flatly contradicts the theory of Mr. Mackenzie as 
to the course Capt. Elliott was steering, when Capt. Perry 
followed him in a boat. Mr. Packett says — " These doubts 
(as to the result of the day,) were increased when the boat 
with Capt. Perry left for the Niagara, who had at that time 
made sail, and was standing for the head of the line, (evi- 
dently THE SCENE OF ACTION,) and to windward of the; 




70 BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 

Lawrence." The words in the parenthesis are Mr. Pack* 
ett's, put in small capitals by me. 

Who was Mr. Packetti A Virginian, equally indepen- 
dant of the two captains, who commanded the Ariel, one 
of the vessels stationed on the Lawrence's weather bow. — 
His position enabled him to see the course Capt. Elliott was 
steering, at that moment, and it is not within the bounds of 
moral probability that he would have used the language he 
did, had the Niagara been passing to windward of his own 
vessel. Unless Capt. Elliott went to windward of the 
Ariel and Scorpion^ he could not have passed half a mile 
or a quarter of a mile to windward of the Lawrence. These 
two schooners were admitted to be in close action, the 
whole time. No one pretends directly that the Niagara 
ivent to windward of these two schooners^ a circumstance 
that is conclusive as to her position. This fact would not 
have been overlooked, in so bitter a controversy, had it 
been so. 

On the other hand the officers of the Niagara, the best 
witnesses as to the position of their own vessel, testify, in 
various forms, against Capt. Mackenzie's theory. Lt. 
Webster say, " We had got into pretty close action, before 
I went below." This was some time before Capt. Perry 
got on board. Again, in answer to a question from Capt. 
Elliott, whether " The Niagara was, at any time during 
the action, from half to three-quarters of a mile on the 
weather bow of the Lawrence, after I ordered the Caledo- 
nia out of the line V — he says — " She was not. I wish 
also to correct my evidence of yesterday, by adding that 
the Ariel and Scorpion were on the weather how of the 
Laivrence,^'' Again, in answer to the question from Capt. 
Elliott, " What distance was I from the Lawrence when T 
passed her, gaining the head of the line V he says — " It 
did not, in my opinion, exceed thirty yards." On this 
point, Mr. Montgomery says — "When Capt. Elliott left 
the Niagara, they (the gun boats,) were all astern of us. — 
We had passed the Scorpion and Ariel. When Captain 
Perry came on board they were all astern, except that I do 
not recollect whether the Scorpion and Ariel were to wind- 
ward^ or astern." 

This is plain enough. The Scorpion and Ariel hadheQXi 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 71 

ahead, and were passed, in pushing for tlie head of the 
English line, which was moving to the westward. Mr. 
Montgomery does not remember whether, at that precise 
moment, they had been passed, or were to ivinchvard ; — 
proof that the Niagara went between them and the Law- 
rence. If she did this^ Capt. Mackenzie's theory falls ; or, 
these two schooners, which he affirms were in close action^ 
were not in close action. 

Mr. Tatem says — " He, (Capt. Elliott, in passing the 
Lawrence,) took yery little more than room enough to pass 
to windward." 

Mr. Cummings says on the same subject — '*! was not 
looking at her, (the Lawrence,) but when I first saw her, 
after we passed her, she was not more than a quarter of a 
mile off." 

This means astern^ as in the previous answer he had 
said, in reference to the position of the Niagara about that 
time, — " I think we were nearer the enemy thandhe Law- 
renceJ''' 

Mr. Tatem, who was then acting as Master of the Nia- 
gara, says, distinctly, when asked, " Was not the helm up, 
and the Niagara bearing down on the enemy when Capt. 
Perry came on board?" "Yes." 

Mr. Berry, the Boatswain, says — "When very near the 
British line, it was discovered Capt. Perry had left his 
vessel," &c. 

Capt. Brevoort sa^s — " Coming near the Lawrence, a 
boat was discovered," &c. 

But, Mr. Magrath was probably the best witness of w hich 
the case admitted. He was a seaman, stood by Captain 
Elliott's side, and gives his testimony like a man of sense, 
with distinctness and moderation. He says — " From a 
feia minutes after the commencement of the action, the ene- 
my being formed very close in a line ahead, their shot 
came over us in every direction, and repeatedly hulled usy 
It was one of these shot that pas'sed through both sides, as 
mentioned by Dr. Barton. Again — " Our position was 
preserved as Tfte/iere the line was intended to he formed 
during the action ; the Caledonia being so close ahead of 
us, that we were obliged frequently to keep the main yard 
braced sharp aback, to keep from going foul of her." — 



72 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 

Every seaman knows that a ship must be off the vvin(3, 
when a top-sail is braced sharp aback ; when on a wind, it 
is braced ^«^ aback. Again — " Capt. Elliott hailed the 
Caledonia, and ordered her helm put up, which was done, 
and the Niagara passed ahead hy filling the main-top-sail 
and setting the jib and fore and aft mainsails. The Ni- 
agara ^ A cw closed in the icake of the Lawrence^'' [Captain 
Mackenzie says she hove-to, sharp up] — " and continued 
the action with the usual vigor, until the Lawrence dropped 
astern, vvhen it is well known that the Niagara almost 
instantly came abreast of the Detroit and Queen Char- 
lotte^ which could not have been the case had she been a 
long distance astern^ 

I look upon Mr. Magrath's as the true version of the bat- 
tle. The Niagara was in her station^ astern of the Cale- 
donia, Capt. Perry omitting to call her out of it. At length, 
Capt. Elliott assumed the responsibilit)' of breaking ihe 
line, and closed as mentioned. 

In opposition to this, Capt. Mackenzie finds some con- 
fused and contradictory testimony of the other side. The 
officers of the Lawrence seem to think the order to engage 
the Charlotte in the line, was an order to follow her, let 
her go where she might. The man who reasons tiius, is 
no tactician or disciplinarian. The object was to get com- 
mand of the lake, and had half the British squadron wore 
round, and made off, it would have been Perry's duty to 
stay and capture the remainder — unless, indeed, he felt 
certain he Avas strong enough to seize all. Nothing is 
plainer than the fact, that the witnesses against Captain 
Elliott fancy the duty of that officer was to follow the 
Charlotte, though he broke the line. They have not un- 
derstood the subject, having been young and inexperienced. 

5th. He is grossly and absurdly illogical. The friends 
of Capt. Mackenzie — some of them at least, — admit that 
he cannut reason. They think him honesty but allow he 
is no logician. I say he is often absurd as a logician. Let 
us look for a ^e\Y proofs. 

In the first place he adopts Mr. Burges's theory of the 
"ENABLED." This is enough, of itself, to make any 
man a Master of Arts, in absurdity. At first, I felt a re- 
luctance to believe that an officer in the Navy could suppose 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 73 

Perry meditated any thing so unworthy ; but, on a re-ex 
aminalion of Capt. Mackenzie's book, I find it must be con- 
ceded that there is, at least, one. Here is what he says, 
after quoting Perry's words — " He, (Perry,) leaves to Capt. 
Elliott the benefit of the inference that, more than two 
hours after the Lawrence had been in close action, he ac- 
tually did what he was enabled to do ; which, by the con- 
current testimony of the officers of the squadron, except a 
i^ew of those of the Niagara, he never did." Now this 
means one of two things — viz: either that Perry told a 
downright untruth, or that he meant the subtlety of the 
*' ENABLED." I think, an examination will show it 
means the last. I shall not suppose any reader so weak 
as to make it necessary to go over this silly and unprinci- 
pled point again. 

But, it may be well to say, Capt. Mackenzie is ?2of justi- 
fied in his assertion about the " concurrent testimony of 
the officers of the squadron, a few of the Niagara except- 
eciy This is one of the many instances in which Captain 
Mackenzie assumes his facts. There is very little evidence, 
and that by no means clear and direct, to show that Capt. 
Elliott did not take the Niagara into close action ; while 
there is a great deal to show he did. Of the eight witnes- 
ses, whose testimony is given by Capt. Mackenzie himself, 
Messrs. Champlin, Breese, and Brownell, say nothing to 
this point — or, if any thing is intended to be said, it leaves 
the inference that, late in the battle, the Niagara r/i^/ close. 
Capt. Perry says he did get into close action, — barrino' the 
" ENABLED" ; Mr. Turner clearly says it, as I liave 
shown; Mr. Packett says it also; Mr. Conklin, of the 
Tigress, says — " When the signal was made for close ac- 
tion, that vessel, (the Niagara, in or near the position 
where Perry found her, and before he bore up to cut the 
line,) was near the enemy's ships Detroit and Queen Char- 
lotte." Mr. Nichols, of the Somers, leaves the same infer- 
ence. Here, then, are three of the Lawrence's officers 
who are silent on the point ; one. Perry himself who 
contradicts it, and four others who did not belono- to the 
Niagara, virtually doing the same. " A few officers of the 
Niagara excepted !" — Messrs. Smith, Magrath, Edwards, 
Webster, and Brevoort, in a letter to the Secretary of the 
7 



K 



'fi ^ . BATTLE OP LAKE ERfE. 

Navy, say — "• Capt. Elliott ordered the Caledonia to bear 
up and leave us room to close ivith the Lawrence^ loldch 
was done, and the action carried on with great vigor and 
spirit on both sides." '* We now ranged ahead, receiving 
the combined fires of the Detroit, Queen Charlotte and 
Lady Prevost," <fec. Some of these gentlemen speak else- 
where to the same point, as Mr. Magrath in the instance 
already given. Messrs. Montgomery, Adams, Tatem, 
Cummings, and Berry, clearly testify to the same fact.— 
This makes ten officers of the Niagara who contradict Capt. 
Mackenzie, including every man of that vessel. Dr. Barton 
excepted, who testified at all. Dr. Barton is excepted, 
merely because he was below. But this is leading me 
from the absurdity. The case may be set down among 
those in which Capt. Mackenzie disregards the witnesses, 
to make facts of his own. 

Speaking of the loss of the different vessels, Captain 
Mackenzie reasons thus, his object being to show that 
Capt. Elliott could not have seen much fighting on the 10th 
September ; — the ' pig-tail' of his book, " Two of the 
schooners, the Tigress and Porcupine, had no casualties 
whatever ; and, as the Trippe and Somers had each hut 
two ivounded, it shows that" " They were unable to take 
an important part in the battle until just before the enemy 
struck." Here, the fact that only two were wounded, is 
given as an argument why the vessel could not have been 
long engaged ; and yet, Capt. Mackenzie, himself, puts 
the Caledonia into close fight from the first, and says, him- 
self, she had but three wounded. This shows the virtue 
there is in a single man ! The Ariel had but four hurt, 
though a gun burst ; and the Scorpion but two, who Avere 
both killed. Yet the Scorpion, with her two hirs, was in 
action the first vessel. She actually began the fight ! Into 
this nonsense, Mr. Mackenzie falls in nearly every chapter. 

Again, Mr. Mackenzie says, page 237, vol. 1 — " The 
Surgeon remarks that he could discern no perceptible dif- 
ference in the rapidity of the firing of the guns over his 
head during the action ; throughout, the actual firing- 
seemed as rapid as in exercise before battle." Tt is to be 
presumed that Capt. Mackenzie did not allude to this 
statement of the Surgeon's — Dr. Parsons, the Surgeori's- 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 7$ 

mate^ is probably meant, but no matter who it was — with- 
out wishing his readers to beUeve it true. By way of prov- 
ing, {^Y clenching i\\\s surprising fact, three sentences lower 
down, Capt. Mackenzie goes on to say — " One by one the 
o-uns were dismounted, until only one remained that could 
be fired." " Of one hundred well men who had gone into 
action, twenty-two were killed and sixty-one wounded." — 
Now, sixty-one added to twenty-two, make eighty-three ; 
which number substracted from one hundred, leaves sev- 
enteen. Corollary — one gun, and seventeen men, af- 
ter fighting two hours and a. half as rapidly as if at exer- 
cise^ kept up as brisk a fire^ as ten guns and one hun- 
dred men \ This statement, be it remembered, came from 
a sea-officer I 

Let us try him again. Capt. Mackenzie, it will be re- 
membered, contends that the Niagara was not in close ac- 
tion, until Capt. Perry got on board. It is proved that Lt 
Webster was knocked down before Capt. Perry reached 
the brig. In a note, page 43, vol. 2, Capt. Mackenzie says 
— '"• Acting Sailing-master Webster, of the Niagara, testi- 
fied, before a Court of Inquiry on Capt. Elliott in 1815, 
two men were killed from his division, and a number of 
men wounded on board before he went below. This took 
place before Capt. Perry boarded the Niagara, at which 
time Mr. Webster was below, though he signed the letter 
stating what Capt. Perry said at that time to Capt. Elliott. 
Mr. Webster was unquestionably mistaken. Though 
he was himself carried below stunned by a hammock, 
wad, or falUng rigging, though thoroughly stunned for the 
time, he recovered and returned to his duty ; he was not 
even sufficiently injured to be borne on the list of the slight- 
ly wounded. There were but two killed in all on board the 
Niafrara during the action; and the Surgeon who made 
out die list of kill td and wounded, and attended to curing 
the latter, ascertained personally from them, that only two 
had been wounded before Capt, Perry took charge of the 
brio-. As there were twenty-three out of five and twenty 
who were wounded after he came on board, while engag- 
ing the whole British squadron within pistol shot, the con- 
clusion seems irrisistable, that the only two killed through- 
out the action must have been killed after she came to 



76 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIIT. 

close quarters. The two known to be wounded at that 
time may have been supposed hy Mr. Webster dead, and 
been the two concerning which he testified." 

This is a precious paragraph ! It is an epitome of the 
Mackenzie, as a Jiistorian, a logician, and a poet ! In the 
first place he reasons on Mr. Webster's hurt, as if it might 
have come from a load^ (^*V thing but a shot,) while he 
insists that Capt. Elliott was not in close action ! Then he 
tln'ows out an insinuation that Mr. Webster signed a pa- 
per of which he could not know the contents to be true, as 
the event occurred on deck, and Mr. Webster was below, 
at the time. This is one of the ' points' on that side of the 
question. But, any thing may be made a point, if testimony 
is tortured to sustain it. The testimony in question was 
given in a letter to the Secretary of the Navy, and distinct- 
ly states that the officers who sign it, give their " combined 
observations, on the occurrences to which it relates." — 
*' United" would have been a less pretending word, per- 
haps, but the meaning is clear enough. It simply says we 
put all our observations together for your information, one 
Iraving seen or heard this, another that, and all some 
things. This is the simple, true and just answer to all 
these cavillings ; cavillings which even find their way into 
Capt. Perry's charges. So obvious was the truth, in this 
matter, that the intelligent council employed against me in 
the Stone arbitration, disdained to resort to so shallow an 
argument. Next comes the proposition in arithmetic, that, 
as two only were wounded, while Capt. Elliott was on 
board, and twenty-three while Capt. Perry was on board, 
why the two slain must, by arithmatical inference, have 
been killed among the greater number wounded. As two 
wounded are to twenty-three, so are two dead men to Capt. 
Perry ! Well, let this be so, and carry out the principle. 
The Porcupine, according to Capt. Mackenzie, himself, 
had two men killed, while no one is reported as wounded. 
Ah ! but " this must be a mistake." Two dead men log- 
ically infer twenty-two wounded men ; reasoning back- 
ward, therefore, and a la Mackenzie, the Scorpion's report 
must have its sting wanting. Then the two men Mr. Web- 
ster doubtless thought dead, since he szvears they were 
dead, may have come to life again, and he know nothing 



BATTLK OF LAKE ERIE> 77 

about it ! They may not, also. As this was Mr. Webster's 
first battle, the men belonged to his own division, and the 
names of just two men killed in a ship would be very like- 
ly to be known, to plain men it seems rather more proba- 
ble Mr. Webster would know whether his two dead men 
had been resuscitated, or not, Capt. Mackenzie is a reg- 
ular resurrectionist ! 

Did ever human being concoct before such a paragraph, 
to meet the plain matter-of-fact oath of a respectable man^ 
who ought, and probably cUd know what he was about ! 
Did Capt. Mackenzie ever reason in this manner on a 
grave occasion 1 — If he did, no one need be surprised at 
what has happened, 

6th. ' He has manifested an indifference to justice, 
which is discreditable to any writer, and which approaches 
an indifference to the truth.' One strong instance, must 
suffice for this head, though many might be given. 

It has been said that Capt. Mackenzie gives the testimo- 
ny of only one side. This, in a man who proposes to write 
history, is bad enough of itself, but Capt. Mackenzie has 
himself shown that his case is much worse. Amonof the 
witnesses whom he cites, is a Lt. Forrest of the Lawrence. 
At pa^e 244, vol. 1 , he especially comments on the testimo- 
ny of Mr. Forrest. A conversation is given which is said to 
have taken place between Capt. Perry and Mr. Forrest, the 
drift of which was to show what was thought of Captain 
Elliott's conduct during the battle. This conversation as- 
sumes that Elliott was not in close action when Perry got 
into the boat. It contradicts Capt. Perry's official report, 
it contradicts IMessrs. Turner, of the Caledonia, Packett, 
of the Ariel, Conklin,^ of the Tigress, and all the officers 
of the Niagara who have testified, Dr. Barton excepted, 
who, being below, could not know the positions of the brigs. 
Still Capt. Mackenzie quotes this conversation, as if it were 
gospel. It probably never occurred. 

In a word, Mr. Forrest, in this letter, is one of the most 
decided of all the witnesses against Capt. Elliott. He says 
— ^" I was on deck from day-light till after the battle was 
over ; and I believed at the time^ and do still most solemn^ 
\y believe, that Capt. Jesse D. Elliott was injiueneed either 

hy anvardice, and fear prevented him from closing tcitk 

7* 



7S BATTLE OP LAK:E £RI£. 

the eyiemy, or that he wished to sacrifice the Laiareitce, and 
then claim the victory for himself.'''' 

Before I proceed farther, I will say here, that I 
do not believe Mr. Forrest ever wrote that sentence ; thougli 
T presume he put his name to it. It has a grammatical 
precision that not one sailor in a thousand ^ ould have ob- 
served — scarcely one landsman. It is correct in a point of 
grammatical construction, on which even many good writers 
fail. Most men would have said '* That either Capt. Jesse 
D. Elliott was influenced" — instead of " was influenced 
either by," &c, Mr. Forrest was not the man, in my 
judgment, to know or understand the distinction. Still, I 
admit, it is all conjecture, and, if true, merely shows he had 
a flapper to help him along. 

But this is a trifle, whether true or not, as compared to 
what is to follow. Mr. Forrest says, in another part of his 
jetter — "After the commencement of the action, Captain 
Elliott, in the Niagara, instead of keeping on loith us, and 
en2:agin£^ his opponent as directed, put his helm down and 
sheered to windward of the Lawrence, leaving the Lawrence 
exposed tD the fire of the enemy's two largest vessels." — 
This testimony of Mr. Forrest's is given in a letter, that is 
7iat sworn to, and which is dated January 29th, 1821. The 
battle having been fought September 10th, 1813, it follows 
that this letter was written seven years, four months and 
nineteeen days after the events to which it alludes. Now 
this same Mr. Forrest was a witness before the Court of In- 
quiry, so often mentioned. There he was under oath. His 
examination took place April 26th, 1815, or one year, 
seven months and sixteen days after the events. As be- 
tween these two bits of evidence, then, no one can hesitate 
about saying which is entitled to be preferred ; one was 
under oath, the other not — one is broadly contradicted by 
a great mass of testimony coming from the best witnesses 
the case affords, the other is much less so, though impugn- 
ed ; one is given more than seven years after the event, 
the other less than two. 

Before the Court of Inquiry, the two following questions 
were put to Mr. Forrest, who returned the answers here 
ofiven. 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE, 79 

Question. — " Did he, (Capt. Elliott,) do every thing be- 
coming a brave and meritorious officer in that action V 

xVnswer. — " Sofaraslsmc, I believe he did.'' 

Question. — "Did the Caledonia and Lawrence, at any^ 
time during the action, bear up and run down on the ene- 
my, leaving the Niagara standing on 1" 

Answer. — " After the action commenced the Niagara 
teas standing directly after us.'''' 

Now, here are two instances in which Mr. Forrest flatly 
contradicts himself. In the letter he says Capt. Elliott 
was a traitor or a coward, in the sworn testimony he be- 
lieves he behaved like a "brave and meritorious officer." — 
In the letter he says that Capt. Elliott, instead of keeping 
on with the Lawrence, put his helm down and "sheered to 
windward ;" in the sworn testimony he says just the con- 
trary ! 

Mr. Forrest, 1 understand, was a man of very feeble 
capacity, as was LVlr. Yarnall, the other Lieutenant of the 
Niagara, and it may be some excuse for him, that he did 
not thoroughly comprehend what he was about. But this 
does not excuse Capt. JVJackenzie. This gentleman par- 
ades before the world the letter of Mr. Forrest, while he 
suppresses the testimony before the Court of Inquiry. — 
This is far worse, than merely publishing the testimony of 
one side — it is presenting that point of the testimony of a 
particular witness, which serves his, Capt. Mackenzie's 
purpose, and suppressing that which flatly contradicts it, 
dwelling on the imperfect evidence, and concealing the 
perfect ; and all coming from the same witness ! 

But, Capt. Mackenzie, those who have been singing his 
praises for the last six months, will probably say, may not 
have knov/n of the testimony of Mr. Forrest before the 
Court of Inquiry. This is possible, though far from 
probable. If ignorant, this would remove the taint which 
would otherwise rest on him ! Certainly. Let us look 
into the facts. 

Capt. Mackenzie is not a reserved writer. His book is 
full of truths, or atrocious calumnies on Capt. Elliott, nor 
is it very guarded as to its censures on me. That Capt. 
Elliott is, in some instances calumniated, I have proved ; 
I think he is ia others, about which I have said nothing r 



so BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 

2.' 

it is liiglilj probable he is, in most of Ceipt. Mackenzie's 
accusations, if not in all. When a man writes accusations 
he is bound to use a proper degree of caution. Now, the 
record of the Court of Inquiry has been often printed-— it is 
to be found at the Navy Department, also, whence I ob- 
tained a certified copy, A biograpliy of Capt. ElUott has 
been pubhshed, whicli Capt. Mackenzie must have read, 
as he speaks of it often. He calls it an auto-biography, as 
if Capt. Elliott had prepared it himself. Well, in tiie ap- 
pendix to this biography of Elliott is to be found nearly 
all the testimony in the different controversies; that againsty 
as well as that for Com. Elliott. In this particular, at 
least, the book is honest. The evidence is not only given, 
but, so far as I can discover, fairly given. In his appendix, 
Capt. Mackenzie gives the testimony of only his own side, 
filling the space, that might better have been filled vvith the 
evidence of Com. Elliott, with a copy of the charges under 
ivhich Com. Elliott lo as tried in 1840; twenty-two ?/e«rs 
cifter Perry'' s death, and on matters noivise connected ivith 
Perry. 

Among other things alleged against me, Capt. Macken- 
zie, page 42, vol. 2, in speaking of the Biography of Com. 
Elliott, says — " Such is a specimen of a work, put forth, 
like some lewd jest book, or collection of indecent songs^ 
without the name of author, publisher, or even printer : a 
work which has nevertheless been freely used by Mr.. 
Cooper in constructing the Naval History of the United 
States." Shortly after the appearance of th^ life of Perry, 
I addressed a letter to the Evening Post, pointing out some 
of the weak spots in the work, en attendant^ and. in refer- 
ence to this particular passage I tell Capt. Mackenzie 
that he is mistaken ; that I took nothing from the text of 
that work. It was true, I used the work on account of the 
appendix, which contained all the testimony as mentioned, 
and I found it convenient as a book of reference I re- 
gretted to add, that, had Capt Mackenzie's book earlier 
appeared, I should have referred to its pages, in vain, with 
the same object, inasmuch as it contains the evidence of 
only one side. I then distinctly showed the eftect of this 
one-sided evidence, by citing as an instance the case of Mr. 
F orrest.. Still I did not accuse Capt. Mackenzie of having 



BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. SI 

deliberately suppressed Mr. Forrest's testimony before the 
Court of Inquiry. On this head, I said : " Mr. Mackenzie 
has not laid before the world the latter testimony (the evi- 
dence before the Court of Inquiry.) Whether he ever saw 
it or not, I shall not pretend to say ; and this merely be- 
cause 1 do not know. Had he observed the same reserve 
as respects me, his work, I cannot but think, would have 
been written in better taste, and I am certain it would have 
been far more accurate." 

This letter extracted an answer from Capt. Mackenzie, 
which appeared in the Evening Post of April 7th, 1841, 
my letter having appeared March 26th, of the same year. 
In answer to what 1 said about the Forrest testimony, Mr. 
Mackenzie replies — " Mr. Cooper charges me, in conclu- 
sion, with having published in the appendix of my work, 
only the documents on one side, in the controversy between 
Perry and Capt. Elliott. In the body of the work I stated 
and commented on the material evidence on the other side, 

INCLUDING WHAT WAS ADDUCED BEFORE THE CoURT OP 

Inquiry. I published in the appendix the justificatory 
pieces upon which I had founded my account of the Battle 
of Lake Erie. I might have added others bearino- ma- 
terially on the question — such as the reports of Capt. Bar- 
clay and his first lieutenant, and the finding of the Court 
martial on the British officers, (it never found any thing of 
the sort meant,) but I believed that I had already published 
enough, even making deduction, as I now do, for the dis- 
crepant statement of one of the witnesses pointed out by 
Mr. Cooper, to justify all my statements, and carry con- 
viction to every u nprejudiced mind," &:c. &lq.. 

Here, then, is Capt. Mackenzie's plea to my declaration, 
in the case of Mr. Forrest. It will be seen he does not 
plead the ignorance, for which I had left an opening in my 
letter. On the contrary, he had commented on the testi- 
mony before the Court of Inquiry, in the body of the work, 
though he is now willing to withdraw Mr. Forrest, as a 
witness ; that is, when he is exposed, and is no longer ten- 
able. Among lawyers the omission to plead ignorance, 
would be taken as an admission that he knew of the ex- 
istence of the suppressed testimony. 

Let \x^ sum up the facts, and come to a judgment. Capt, 



S2 BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 

Mackenzie professes to write history. In this history he 
strongly criminates an officer, who was an actor in a par- 
ticular battle. He furnishes the evidence by which he 
justifies his history, and his criminations. Not satisfied 
with suppressing the eviddnce of one whole side, he even 
suppresses the evidence of one of his own witnesses, when 
it makes against himself; producing that portion only 
which sustains his theory, though less entitled to respect 
than that he suppressed. He is told of this fault, by one 
who allows it may have proceeded from ignorance ; he 
does not plead ignorance in his defence, but thinks the 
point is disposed of because he had commented on the sup- 
pressed testimony in the body of his work. 

Now what sort of commentary in the body of the work, 
would be a justification for publishing the letter of Mr. 
Forrest, and suppressing the testimony before the Court 
of Inquiry X Clearly none but such as would altogether 
explain away the last, leaving to the first its complete au- 
thority. When Capt. Mackenzie tells the public, in answer 
to a statement as distinct as that I had made in the Eve- 
ning Post, that he had commented on the testimony before 
the Court of Inquiry^ the public had a right to suppose 
that these comments justified his using the letter, and sup- 
pressing the sworn evidence. It remains, therefore, to 
ascertain how far this is true, or untrue. 

Capt. Mackenzie incidentally mentions the court of 
1815, in two or three places in his book, without touching 
on the character of the evidence, however. The last is 
done, only^ at page 159, vol. 2d, where the following pas- 
sage is to be found ; viz. — 

" In April, 1815, soon after the date of this letter, a 
Court of Inquiry, consisting of three members, was held in 
New York for the purpose of investigating the losses of the 
President, Frolic and Rattlesnake. Capt. Elliott, being at 
the time in New York, in command of the sloop Ontario, 
applied to the Navy Department to instruct this court to 
inquire into the conduct of the Niagara while under his 
command in the battle on Lake Erie, and whether the 
Niagara attempted to " make away," as stated in the find- 
ing of the British court-martial on Com. Barclay. The 
Secretary immediately instructed the court, that it having 



• BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 83 

been stated to him that, by the proceedina^s of a Court of 
Inquiry in Great Britain, the conduct of Capt Elliott had 
been "misrepresented," justice to the reputation of Capt. 
Elliott and to the navy of the United States required that 
a true statement of the facts in relation to his conduct 
on that occasion should be exhibited to the world. The 
court was therefore directed to inquire into the same, as- 
certain the part he had sustained during the action, and 
report to the Department. The court immediately pro- 
ceeded to the examination of seven witnesses, five of whom 
belonged to the Niagara, while two of the Lawrence's offi- 
cers were introduced to give a color of impartiality to the 
transactions. The evidence of the minority was, of 
COURSE BORNE DOWN, aiid the court came to the highly 
jyatriotic conclusion that^ instead of the Niagara making 
AWAY from the Queen Charlotte, the Queen Charlotte 
hore off from the fire of the Niagara. Vl gave no reason, 
however, why the Niagara did not follow her. The court 
was begun and ended with the utmost celerity. In the 
investigation of the case, neither tiie commanding officer on 
the occasion, nor any of the commanders of the small 
vessels, were summoned to give their evidence." 

This is all Capt. Mackenzie says of the Court of Inquiry. 
These are his comments ! First, then, as to Mr. Forrest. 
Do the comments tell the reader that, Mr. Forrest, before 
this court, swore directly contrary to the most material 
part of that evidence of his which Capt. Mackenzie has 
paraded before the world, in his book ! So far from this, 
it leaves the reader to suppose that the evidence of the 
two officers of the Lawrence, of whom Mr. Forrest was 
one, was altogether in favor of his theory, hut icas home 
down hy the evidence of the five loitnesses of the Niagara. 
I hope those persons who are ready to canonize Capt. 
Mackenzie as a saint, without waiting the customary 
century, will bear this whole matter in mind. To me, I 
confess it fully sustains the charges I have given as the 5th. 

But, bad as Capt. Mackenzie has left this matter, on its 
face^it is much worse when we come to look further into 
it. By this statement the court instead of finding " ^/trz^ 
the Niagara teas making aiaay from the Queen Charlotte,'''' 
found quite the contrary. Capt. Mackenzie ogives the 



84 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 

reader to suppose that had not the testimony of the two, 
been ' borne down' by that of the five, the result would have 
been different. The whole sentence means this, or it means 
hothino-. Now, what do these two officers, themselves, 
sar, on this sulDJect'? Mr. Forrest was asked as follows, 
and answered as follows : 

Question. — ''Did the Niagara attempt to male off from 
the British fleet, at any time during the action V 

Answer. — "No." 

To Mr. Yarnall the same question was put,andthe same 
answer given. 

Question. — " Did the Niagara, at any time during the 
action, attempt to make off from the British fleet 1" 

Answer.— "No." 

In the name of common honesty, is not this sufficient 
to characterize Capt. Mackenzie's book 1 Then, he com- 
ments " on the material evidence on the other side," exclu- 
sively of that before the Court of Inquiry ! Does he 1 — 
Where 1 — When ? — How % As a general and just comment 
on the objection of having substantially suppressed the evi- 
dence against his theory, J am constrained to say, that the 
fact is otherwise. Capt Mackenzie's book contains no 
allusion, whatever, to most and the best evidence against 
him, although he occasionally introduces a little of the 
testimony, usually, if not invariably, to insinuate its worth- 
lessness, rather than to prove it. He even suppresses Capt. 
Perry's official report of the battle, quoting from it in 
scraps,as it suited his own purposes. He says, page 280,vol. 
1, " The opinion ic as general in the squadron that Capt El- 
liott had either been actuated by cowardice, or by a treach- 
erous desire to see the Lawrence overpowered and her 
commander slain, and that he might take his station, and 
by winning the victory, become the hero of the day." In 
a"^note, he refers the reader to the affidavits at the end of 
the work, to prove this cool assertion. It is true this is 
stated in six of these eight affidavits, but the effect is only 
to lessen the respect for the testimony, as the rebutting 
evidence triumphantly disproves the fact. About this there 
can be no dispute. When more witnesses testify m favor 
of a man, than testify against him, it is an absurdity to 
say he is " generally condemned." This is a vulgar failing 



BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 85 

of *' cliques" who think they compose the whole earth. 
But, why does Capt. Mackenzie suppress the rebutting tes- 
timony, on this single point, and of which Mr. Forrest's 

EXAMINATION COMPOSES A PART? 

Take a single specimen of the manner in which Capt. 
Mackenzie " comments" on the testimony of the other 
side. Capt. Elliott publishes affidavits from Capt. Bre- 
voort and Mr. Berry, the boatswain of the Niagara, to prove 
a conversation that occurred between him and Capt. Perry, 
when the latter came on board the Niagara. This con- 
versation is also alluded to in the joint letter of the ward- 
room officers of the Niagara to the Secretary of the Navy. 
Capt. Brevoort, and the boatswain who attended the side, 
to receive Capt. Perry, swear distinctly to what passed, 
and they substantially agree ; but Capt. Mackenzie dis- 
poses of the point as follows : " The enemy were on the 
starboard side ; the starboard guns were necessarily man- 
ned, and it is not likely that a single officer was present at 
the larboard gangway, by which Capt. Perry came on 
board, except only Capt. Elliott, who came there to receive 
him. From Capt. Elliott, then, probably proceeded the 
statement of this extraordinary conversation ; the real na- 
ture of it, which is so different, we have seen in the text 
as related by Capt. Perry to Mr. Hambleton immediately 
after his return to the Lawrence, and set down by him at 
the time, when no one supposed it would be the subject of 
such absurd misrepresentations." 

This is commenting on evidence, forsooth ! Mr. Ham- 
bleton's unsworn account, if indeed it be his account, of 
Capt. Perry'' s declaration^ is to be conclusive as against 
the sworn testimony of indifferent parties ! Next comes 
the parade about starboard and larboard sides, as if every 
officer must be stuck close in with the guns, at quarters ; 
or, as if a human voice could not be heard across the deck 
of a vessel of any size, especially when the speaker vi'as a 
little excited. This last reasoning, might be put m the 
category of the absurdities. 

On the next page, Capt. Mackenzie says — "These five 

officers join in giving the words uttered respectively by 

Capt. Perry and Capt. Elliott when the former came on 

board tbe Niagara. It is apropos of this, that he goes on 

8 



S6 BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE, 

to reason about the larboard and starboard sides, &c. Now 
the five officers in question did no such thing, as I have 
aheady shown bj a quotation from their letter. They gave 
their " combined observations,'* meaning, that what was 
seen or heard by them all, should be presented to tlie Sec- 
retary in a single letter. This is commenting on the testi- 
mony r 

But I must conclude* Only one more instance shall be 
furnished to prove Capt Mackenzie's indifference to the 
truth. At page 42, vol. 2, he says — " He (Mr. Cooper) 
has attempted to show that, if there was any merit in this 
act, (the act of Perry, in passing from the Lawrence to the 
Niagara,) Capt. Elliott exhibited it in a greater degree." — ■ 
This is as cooly stated, as if it were true. The note, in 
which my remarks are made, flatly contradicts it. Speaking 
of the ?ncre act of passing in the hoat^ it says — " But this 
was the least of Perry's merits." It adds a little lower 
down — "Capt. Perry's merit was an indomitable resolutioi^ 
not to be conquered,, and the manner in which he sought 
new modes of victory, when the old ones failed him. The 
position taken by the Niagara, at the close of the alTairy 
(when Elliott had left her,) the fact, that he sought the best 
means of repairing his loss, and the motive with which he 
passed from vessel to vessel, constitute his claims to admi- 
ration," Capt. Mackenzie's untrue and garbled statement^ 
on this head, compells me to tell him he has not acted like 
a man of good faith, in this particular. It is so impossible 
for any man to read my note, and not see what it " at- 
tempts'''' to show, that I am almost induced to believe Capt. 
Mackenzie has only read Dr. Duer's pretended extract 
from it. 

I could write pages on pages more to show the utter 
worthlessness of this book, in all that relates to the battle 
of Lake Erie. It does not give the force correctly, audit 
is faulty throughout. By assuming that Capt. Elliott did 
not come into close action at all, it goes far beyond the 
majority of even the Perry v/itnesses, and contradicts Perry 
himself. Capt. fVIacUenzie relies for the evidence of this 
fact on Messrs. Yarnall, Forrest and Taylor, of the Law- 
rence, who agree in saying, that when Capt. Perry left the 
Lawrence, the Niagara was from a quarter to half a mile 



BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. - 8? 

on tlieir weather beam, or bow. From this list Mr. Forrest 
is clearlv to be struck, though he says, himself, he is not 
certain of this fact. After reading all the testimony, I 
have little doubt that this difficulty can be got over in the 
following way. The Lawrence was unmanagable ; the 
wind had increased, and she got a stern drift. At this 
moment all the vessels were in motion, and by canting the 
head of the Lawrence to leeward a little, the Niagara might 
Yery well seem to have been on her weather bow, when in 
truth she was ahead^ as regards tiie original position. Some 
of the officers of the Lawrence are said not to have been 
particularly sagacious, and wounded, occupied, and situa- 
ted as they were, it is not surprising that they should fall 
into a mistake on this point. The v/orld itself turns round, 
without millions knowing any thing about it. At any rate, 
if Capt. Mackenzie be disposed to insist on his evidence 
for this one fact — and he has made it the distinctive fact in 
bis history — where will he find himself? He will have 
3Iessrs. Yarnall and Taylor to sustain him, as opposed to 
Messrs, Perry, Turner, Packett, Conklin, neither cf the 
Niagara, and Messrs. Smith, Magrath, Edwards, Webster, 
Brevoort, Cummin gs, Montgomery, Tatem, Adams and 
Berry, every one of whom contradict, in some form or 
other, this particular facl^ and several in various ways,direct» 
ly, incidently, or bj' unavoidable implication. Even some 
of the witnesses that Capt. Mackenzie quotes, and who are 
silent on the point, contradict his fact by implication. Thus, 
Mr. Champlin, where he speaks of the Niagara's passing 
the Lawrence, uses these words — ^*'A short time before 
Com. Perry's going on board of her (the Niagara) she 
ranged ahead of the Lawrence, (where Mr, Champlin was 
himself, in command of the Scorpion,) and to windward 
of her, bringing tlve Commodore's ship between her and the 
enemy, when she might have passed to leeward and relieved 
her from their destructive fire," This is not lanffua^e 
likely to be used of a vessel that was half a mile to wind- 
ward ! Had such been tiie fact, it strikes me Mr. Champlin 
would have been willing enough to say it. He wishes to 
criminate Capt. Elliott, and it would have been a much 
more serious charge to have said * you were away off half 
a mile to windward,' in lieu of merely saying 'you ought 



BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 

to have passed inside, instead of outside the Lawrence. '^ 
Nor would Mr. Champlin have forgotten to have told the 
fact, had Capt. Elliott passed to windward of his own ves- 
sel the Scorpion, which Capt. Mackenzie admits was in 
close action from the beginning. Unless the Scorpion were 
a good deal more than half a mile to windward of the Law- 
rence, the Niagara could not have been, without^going 
outside of her. Mr. Brownell, of the Ariel, the other ves- 
sel ahead, or to windward of the Lawrence, gives substan- 
tially the same evidence as Mr. Champlin, on this point. 
Jt is, indeed, verbatim, as far as Mr. Champlin goes. Mr. 
Packett, who commanded the Ariel, says distinctly that 
the Niagara was "steering for the head of the line (evidently 
the scene of action) to windward of the Lawrence," but not 
to windward of himself There is something very presu- 
ming in a writer's insisting on a fact that is sustained by 
only two witnesses, and which is denied by fourteen, be- 
sides being disproved by circumstances. But Capt. Mac- 
kenzie has a trick of seeing things his own way. 

Capt. Mackenzie has one passage, that, coming from a 
seaman, or one who ought to be a seaman, deserves com- 
memoration. He says — vol. 1, page 250 — " Perry's first 
order on board the Niagara was to back the main-top-sail, 
and stop her from running out of the action. (It seems by 
this, she was in the action, at all events ;) his next, to brail 
up the main-try-sail, put the helm up, and bear down be- 
fore the wind," (fee. This was to cut the line. On the 
next page he adds — "The helm had been put up on board 
the Niagara, sail made, and the signal for close action hove 
out at forty-five minutes after two, the instant Perry 

HAD BOARDED HER." 

Now, I do not suppose Capt. Mackenzie is so ignorant 
of the hornbook of his profession, as to believe any man, 
who instantly intended to bear up, would begin by backing 
his main-top-sail ; but I do suppose he is of such a frame 
of mind, that when he wishes to see any particular thing, 
he loses sight of all others. The simple facts are, that Capt. 
Elliott was abeam of the weight of the English force, with- 
in musket shot ; (a fact which I had forgotten to mention, 
is proved by a circumstance concerning which there can 
be no mistake ; Mr. Cummings having been wounded by 



^ ( 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 89 

a musket ball, in the main-top, too, about this time) the 
brio- had fair way on her, and was drawing ahead while 
the two captains were conversing ; as soon as Perry found 
himself alone, ke perceived the fact, and'backed his top- 
sail, to keep square with his enemies ; looking about at 
the scene, he made the signal for closer action ; waited a 
few minutes, as the schooners were closing fast ; then up 
helm, and went through the enemy's line. Whether this 
last manoeuvre was determined by the attempt of the English 
to ware, and their getting foul of each other, I have not 
been able to ascertain. If so, it accounts at once for the 
time of the movement. Capt. Mackenzie's own account 
of the time contradicts his other statements. At 30 min* 
utes past two, Perry got into the boat. He had a man-of- 
war's cutter and six men. Under the circumstances, the 
boat would have gone the pretended half mile of Capt. 
Mackenzie, certainly in five minutes, and as the Niagara 
bore up at 45 minutes past 2, it leaves ten for Perry to be 
on board, before he ordered the change. T understand the 
boat did pull quite a quarter of a mile to reach the Niagara, 
thouo-h it was ahead, instead of to-windward. 

Then Capt. Mackenzie, assuming somewhat too much of 
the de liaut en has tone, for a nautical critic who backs his 
main-top-sail to ware-ship, sneers at my calling the posi- 
tion of the Niagara, one or two cable's lengths to windward 
of the enemy's heaviest vessels " commanding;" another 
touch of seamanship of which I will not complain. The 
following circumstance, however, in connection with this 
point, may be worth mentioning. Shortly after the arbi- 
tration of last year, 1 was addressed in the C'ity Hall, by 
an utter stranger, who told me his name was Webster, and 
that he regretted ill health had prevented his hearing our 
discussion, as he knew something of the case. Mr. Web- 
ster then went on to make his statement. He had paid a 
visit to Perry, shortly after the battle, and had heard his 
account of all its details, over and over again, the object of 
the visit being to get these very details to make an engrav- 
ing. Now, one of Perry's statements, according to Mr» 
Webster, was that he had found the Niagara in an excel- 
lent position. Mr. Webster has, I believe, since published 
this account, under his own signature. 
8* 



9ft BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE, 

It is ail evidence of the peculiar mind of Capt. Macken- 
zie, that he should cavil about the position given the Ni- 
agara being a " commanding one," as he has dene at 
length, both in his book and in his letter in the Post, when 
the advantage was such that a powder-monkey could un- 
derstand it. He might have disputed the fact^ without 
denying the inference. But he disputes the inference, ad- 
mitting the fact. 

As a mere biography, Capt. Mackenzie's book is suffi- 
ciently weak. No doubt it has many facts that were not 
known to the public, but, the instant the writer attempts 
to reason, he breaks down. 1 shall not travel out of the 
record to prove this, though I shall cite one instance, be- 
cause it will show that even Perry was too much under 
the influence of feeling to be altogether just and discrimi- 
nating in his statements. 

The battle was fought on the 10th Sept. It has been 
seen that Dr. Parsons broke ground, by questioning some 
of the wounded of the Niagara, as early as the 12th. — 
Soon after a brother of Capt. Elliott's arrived, and stated 
that reports unfavorable to him, were in circulation among 
Harrison's troops. It is probable this is the first direct 
intimation Capt. Elliott received of what was passing. 

He now wrote a letter to Capt Perry, which was dated 
Sept. 19th, and which has been given in his own biography, 
and in several other and earher publications, in the follow- 
ing words : viz — 

U. S. Brig Niagara^ Put-in-Bay^ ) 
Sept.l7th, 1813. / 
Sir : I am informed a report has been circulated by 
some malicious persons, prejudicial to my vessel when 
engaged with the enemy's fleet. I will thank you, if you 
will, with candor, state to me the conduct of myself, officers 
and crew. 

Respectfully your Ob. Ser. 

JESSE D. ELLIOTT. 
Capt. Perry. 

Captain Mackenzie makes it a serious charge against 
Capt. Elliott, that this letter has not been correctly given. 
He even puts this language into the mouth of Perry con- 



BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 91 

ceriiing' if; " The note addressed to me, (meaning the 
above note,) is altogether unlike the original," &-c. 
Capt. Mackenzie gives the note from the original found 
among Com. Perry's papers ; and it, no doubt correctly, m 
couched in these words, viz: — 

U, S. ship Niagara, Sept. 19th, 1813. 
Dear Sir : My brother, who has this evening arrived 
from the interior of the country, has mentioned to me a 
report that appeared to be in general circulation, that, in 
the late action with the British fleet, my vessel betrayed a 
want of conduct in bringing into action, and that your ves- 
sel was sacrificed in consequence of a want of exertion on, 
my part individually. I will thank you, it immediately 
you will, with candor, name to me my exertions and that of 
my officers and crew. 

Yours, respectfully. 

JESSE D. ELLIOTT. 
^ " Capt. O. H. Perry, Erie." 

Now this last note is not altogether unlike the firsts 
It is substantially the same. There is no difference but 
what very well and very honestly may have happened in 
endeavoring to give a transcript from memory. Captain 
Elliott says he kept no copy, and when it was necessary 
to publish, he was obliged to give what he rightly suppos- 
ed to be the substance of his own note. He has done so,. 
as to all essentials. Hear what Capt. IMackenzie says 
about these notes. " On a comparison of the real, original 
letter written by Capt. Elliott, as given in the text, with 
this letter, published in the Erie Sentinel, a month and a 
half afterwards,^ and re-produced in the Life of Com. Elli- 
ott, the reader will perceive that the whole tone of the letter 
is changed, yVowi an urgent friendly appeal to a perempto- 
ry DEMAND." jVow, 1 confcss, I am surprised that even- 
Capt. Mackenzie should not scruple to assert this, with the 
two letters printed on the same page ! (See note, page 
284, vol. 1, Life of Perry.) The first sentence, in each 
letter, is simply explanatory, and the substance of these 
preambles is the same. If there be any difference in tone, 
in these preambles, it is against Capt. Mackenzie's view, as, 
by making the allusion to the Lawrence's having been 



tfM 



2 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 



sacrificed by Elliott's conduct, a distorted imagination 
might possibly see something personal, as between the two 
captains. If this allusion can be made out, it is in Capt. 
Elliott's favor, inasmuch as it is to be found in the letter 
actually sent, and not in the letter published. The same 
is true as to the " demand," which after all, contains the 
substance of the charge. The letters are substantially 
identical, as to this sentence, with the exception of the use 
of the word " immediately," which word alone can, by 
possibility, be tortured into any thing " peremptory." But 
this " immediately" is to be found in the letter sent, and 
not in the letter published ! The difference in the dates 
Capt. Mackenzie, himself, thinks immaterial, and acciden- 
tal. Now for the answers, in which Capt. Mackenzie al- 
leges a difference also to exist. 

Captain Elliott's Biography gives this answer, in the fol- 
lowing words, viz '. — 

U. S. schooner Ariel, Put-in-Baif, > 
Sept. ISth, 1813. i 
My Dear Sir: I received your note last evening, after I 
had turned in, or I should have answered it immediately. 
I am indignant that any report should be circulated pre- 
judicial to your character as respects the action of the 10th 
instant. It affords me just pleasure that T have it in my 
power to assure you, that the conduct of yourself, officers 
and crew, was such as to merit my warmest approbation ; 
and I consider the circumstance of your volunteering to 
bring the small vessels into close action, as contributing 
largely to our victory. I shall ever believe it a premedi- 
tated plan to destroy our commanding vessel. I have no 
doubt, had not the Queen Charlotte have ran away from 
the Niagara, from the superior order I observed her in, 
you would have taken her in twenty minutes. 

With sentiments of esteem, I am, dear sir. 
Your friend and obedient servant, 

O. H. PERRY. 
Captain Elliott. 

Here follows Capt. Mackenzie's version of the same let- 
ter, taken, as he says, from a copi/ found among Perry'& 
papers, viz : — 



' BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 93 

U. S. schooner Ariel^ Put-in-Bay^ \ 
Sept. 19iA, 1813. ] 
Dear Sir : I received your note last evening after I had 
turned in, or I should have answered it immediately. 1 am 
indignant that any report should be in circulation prejudi- 
cial to your character, as respects the action of the 10th in- 
stant. It affords me pleasure that I have it in my power 
to assure you, that the conduct of yourself, officers and 
crew was such as to meet my warmest approbation. And 
I consider the circumstance of your volunteering, and 
bringing the small vessels to close action as contributing 
largely to our victory. I shall ever believe it a premedita- 
ted plan of the enemy to disable our commanding vessel, 
by bringing all their force to bear on her; and I am satis- 
fied, had they not pursued this course, the engagement 
would not have lasted thirty minutes. I have no doubt, if 
the Charlotte had not made sail and engaged the Law- 
rence, the Niagara would have taken her in twenty 
minutes. 

Respectfully, <fec. 

O. H. PERRY. 
Capt. Jesse D. Elliott, ) 
U. S. ship Niagara. ) 

This is the answer which Capt. Mackenzie admits 
Perry sbnt to Capt. Elliott. Capt. Mackenzie says, that 
Perry, in writing such a letter, " committed a great fault, 
cannot be denied." It is a little odd that, reasoning on his 
own premises, or believing that Elliott did not deserve such 
a letter, Capt. Mackenzie is the only human being who 
would probably ever think of denying this, his own propo- 
sition. Deny it he does, however, in effect, at page 132, 
of vol. 2d, where he says that the affair of Capt. Heath 
was the " single serious fault" of Perry's Life. But a mind 
of so much subtelty may see a distinction between a serious 
fault, and a great fault — it evidently sees a crime in Capt, 
Elliott's version of the letters. 

Now, supposing both of the letters as given by Captain 
Mackenzie to be correctly given, which alterations does 
the reader fancy that gentleman treats as the most grave ? 
Those in Capt. Elliott's note ! Such is the waywardness of 
hiofh intellect! Ordinary men would see 3. substantial alter- 



94 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 

atioii in the assertion that the Queen Charlotte ran away 
from the Niagara, but Mr. Mackenzie does not, while he 
thinks the substitution of " Sir" for " Dear sir" a very se- 
rious matter; as he does in Perry's letter the substitution 
of " My dear sir," for " Dear sir." 

In the first place, Capt. Perry, while he does complain 
of the alteration in Capt. Elliott's note, affirming it was 
" altogether unlike" what he had actually written, which 
any man may see it is not, does not complain of any alter- 
ation in his own. Now, where there was so strong a dis- 
position to take exceptions — so strong as to cause Captain 
Perry to write to a friend that the two Elliott notes were 
"altogetlier unlike," it is hardly probable the changes in his 
own letter would have passed unnoticed, did they actually 
exist. If Capt. Perry copied his own letter a little care- 
lessly, or from memory, he did the very thing that Captain 
Elliott is accused of having done, and must be put in the 
same category, with this essential difference, that the alter- 
ations made by himself are much the most material. I pro- 
fess to know no more of the matter, though I have seen a 
copy of Capt. Perry's letter, certified to as corresponding 
to the original, v hich agrees with the letter given in the 
Biography of Elliott. That Capt. Perry's copy is not 
scrupulously exact, I infer from this fact. It ends abrupt- 
ly " Respectfully, &:,c.," which is not the termination a mau 
would be apt to use, who felt so much indignation in be- 
half of an injured friend — " My dear sir" even seems more 
natural than "Dear sir," though that may depend on hab- 
it. I have had in my possession six or eight notes written 
from Capt. Perry to Capt. Elliott, about this time, and all 
but one terminates " Yours truly." — The exception termi- 
nates *' Yours very truly." This was after the note of the 
19th September, and it does not seem likely to me, that a 
man who wrote *' Yours truly" on ordinary occasions, 
would be apt to cut off a letter like that given by Captain 
Mackenzie with a cold " Respectfully, <fec." 

I attach very little importance to all this — the opinion of 
Elliott's conduct, given by Capt. Perry nine days after the 
battle excepted — but as Capt. Mackenzie attaches a great 
deal, especially to the " Sir," and " Dear sir," I have an- 
swered him. There is one point, in his objections, ho^v- 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE, 95 

ever, which T have reserved for the last. He thinks the 
suppression of the fact that injurious reports to the preju- 
dice of Capt. EUiott, prevailed in Gen. Harrison's army, was 
of grave import, and was intentionally done in the pub- 
lished note by Capt. Elliott. If Capt. Elliott reasoned thus, 
why did he put it into, the note at all ^ His question could 
have been put as well without, as with it. Then, by what 
ingenuity, even of the Mackenzie school, can this circum- 
stance be tortured into a wish to give the note more the air 
of a peremptory demand 1 

The dullest minds and the lowest moral feelings ever 
attach the most importance to vulgar " report." Captain 
Mackenzie lays stress on these ^'reports," more especially if 
they have the salt of calumny. The man of the world knows 
that the rarest thing in it, is pure, unadulterated truth. So 
rare is it, indeed, that half mankind cannot recognize it, 
when they see it. " Reports," forsooth ! Why, it was a 
current report not long since, that Capt. Mackenzie him- 
self, in a hand-to-hand conflict, suppressed a furious muti- 
ny on board the U. 8. brig Somers. How many persons 
have believed Capt. Mackenzie's own report touching the 
meanness of Capt. Elliott, in taking refuge in Capt. Perry's 
official letter, before the Court of Inquiry, of 1815? This 
" report in the army," like " the rumor" that only two men 
were wounded on board the Niagara before the arrival of 
Capt. Perry, has ever been a strong point on that side of 
the question, but wisdom tells us the value of such argu- 
ments. Sad experience may teach Capt. Mackenzie that 
it is miserable testimony to hear it said " That the d — d 
fool is on the larboard arm-chest, and the d — d rascal on 
starboard" — That there is really such a thing as " evi- 
dence" in this world, and that wise men seek it, and intel- 
ligent and just men like to get it on both sides before they 
make up a judgment. A lie, of the comparative interest of 
this ' report' about Capt. Elliott, would have entered one 
■wing of Napoleon's largest force, and travelled through all 
the corps d^armee, in a week. There is a rumor, now very 
prevalent in this country, that Capt. Mackenzie proved 
himself a coward, in the affair of the post-boy who was as- 
sassinated in Spain, and it has grown out of the supposed 
qualities that he manifested on board the Somers. I do not 



96 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 

mention this, because I think Capt. Mac(<enzie merits 
either accusation, for, in this, I honestly think gross injus- 
tice is done him; but to give him tangible proof of the value 
of * rumor.' I make no doubt he was right, in taking the 
course he did in Spain, nor do I think he was influenced 
by fear, in its abject sense, in the aff*air of the Somers. I 
have pleasure in saying this, because he wears the Navy 
button, though I think him otherwise, as wrong in that af- 
fair, as a man well could be. It is beneath the character 
of a historian to lay any stress on ' reports' of such a nature, 
unless sustained by sufficient proof. 

I can give Capt. Mackenzie a case, in the service, very 
analogous in some of its features, not only to the rumors in 
Gen. Harrison's army, but to the popular opinion concern- 
ing Com. Elliott's supposed delinquency in the battle of 
Lake Erie. It touched, at one time, the reputation of one 
of the best officers in the Navy — Com. Biddle — and I know 
that nothing but the high character he won in the war of 
1812, prevented its breaking out against him, with strength. 
Had he been the object of unprincipled attacks, in connec- 
tion with party politics, no one can doubt that the whole 
country would have rung with it. About the year 1820, 
Capt. Biddle, in the Congress, frigate, suffered himself to 
be warned off the port of Cadiz, by a French blockading 
squadron, going into Gibraltar with his ship. This was 
compromising the honor of the flag, to all appearances ; it 
being the established privilege of a man-of-war to pass a 
blockade. Again, Capt. Biddle went to the Havana, in 
the Macedonian, and got the yellow fever in his ship, suf- 
fering severely, and greatly to the prejudice of his own re- 
putation, at the time, for discretion. In both instances the 
complaints were so deep as to reach my ear, though then 
unconnected with the service, except by old friendships and 
feeling. Any man may have disliked the affairs, and glad was 
I to learn, years afterwards, that Com. Biddle acted, in both 
cases, under precise orders from the Department. He had 
the dignity of mind to forbear until a fitting opportunity 
arrived, and then in asserting his rights as a man-of-war's 
man, with proper spirit, on the Brazil station, he inci- 
dentally mentioned the Cadiz transaction, as a case not to 
be cited as a precedent, inasmuch as the commander of the 



BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 97 

Congress acted under orders from his government. How 
is it with Com. ElHott.? He was astern, with his top-sail 
to the mast, while the Lawrence was sutFering, and the cry 
is he ought to have made sail and closed. Viewed in this 
naked manner, it is no wonder a parcel of western militia 
volunteers cried out ajjainst him. But what a different 
case is offered when we find that the top-sail was aback to 
prevent going into a vessel, astern of which he was ordered 
to keep one hundred and twenty yards ; that this station 
was not only given to him, but " enjoined" upon him ; 
that the superior who had given the injunction was there 
to recall it, if he deemed it necessary, and that he was in 
the best situation to judge of that necessity ! 

Capt. Mackenzie thinks a * report' in Gen. Harrison's 
army so very conclusive against Capt. Elliott, when, on 
its face, that army could only know what it heard. He 
himself believed a 'report,' and had the indiscretion to 
print.it, too, when he was told that Paul Jones' sword 
passed from Com. Barry, through two or three other senior 
officers of the navy, down to Com. Dale ; when the facts 
show that Com. Barry bequeathed this sword directly to 
Com. Dale, that it never pj^ssed down through any senior 
officer, that Cora. Dale never was senior officer of the Navy^ 
and that he was not in the Navy at all, when he re- 
csiVF.n this sword ! So much for " reports." 

Another instance of the value of ' reports' is directly 
connected with Capt. Elliott, himself Nothing could have 
been better than the conduct of this officer in cutting out 
the two brigs from under Fort Erie, and yet a 'report' has 
widely prevailed in the navy, that one of these vessels at 
least, was given up to him by treachery — a 'report' to which 
Perry, himself, alludes in the letter accompanying his 
charges. Now, this 'report' is vindicated only by ' report' — 
rumor sustaining I'umor, without a particle of any thing 
approaclung evidence, while the proof of the falsity of this 
* report' is direct, complete, overwhelming — as full as be- 
longs to any case in the history of the country ! 

Away then with these unjust puerilities, and let the men 

of America, meet a question of fact like men, and not as so 

many village crones gossiping around a tea-pot ! What 

sort of notions would the public obtain, what would be the 

9 



93 BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 

character of the ' reports,' from diagrams like those of Mr, 
Burges's, criticism like that of Dr. Duer's, facts and docu- 
mentary evidence like these of Capt. Mackenzie's! 

In the foregoing statements, 1 have not attempted to 
dissect a tithe of the blunders, inaccuracies, and false reas- 
oning of Capt. Mackenzie. What I have said, I trust has 
been plainly said. Asa rule, I dislike the argumentum ad 
hominem^ but Mr. Mackenzie is a writer who provokes 
this species of retort, by his own fondness for it. He ap- 
plies it to me, on various occasions, and he will now dis- 
cover, perhaps, that he is not altogether invulnerable, 
himself. 

The reader will have perceived that Capt. Mackenzie 
deprives himself of all excuse of ignorance, by admitting in 
terms that he had all the evidence before him, and thinks 
he commented on it, in the body of his book ! Thus, 
when he accuses Capt. Elliott of the meanness of falling 
back on Perry's official account of the battle, before the 
Court of Inquiry of 1815, a charge that I have proved un- 
answerably by the record of that court is not Jrue, he had 
that very record before him, and commented on the testi- 
mony, BY HIS OWN SHOWING. That he had the record be- 
fore him, might be proved from divers admissions in his 
work itself, but his own direct declaration supersedes the 
necessity of producing further evidence. 

As for Capt. Mackenzie's pretended comments on the 
testimony in favor of Capt. Elliott, they would appear 
ridiculous to any discreet man who should take.^the trouble 
to examine the documents. He has selected one or two- 
points, generally of a very immaterial character, and has 
reasoned on them in his own peculiar manner, leaving the 
great mass of the evidence untouched ! The ' peculiar 
manner' is this — " It is not likehf he says " that a single 
officer was present at the larboard gangway" to receive 
Perry, when he reached the Niagara. Upon this " it is 
not likely" he infers that the oaths of those who sivtar dis- 
tinctly to what they heard, were untrue ! This is com- 
menting on testimony with a vengeance ! Now it laas 
likely that every officer of the quarter-dec'^-, who was not 
otherwise engaged, should go forward to receive Perry. 
Capt. Brevoort was acting as a marine officer, and it was 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 99 

the most natural thing in the world that he should be there, 
and, as" for the Boatswain he was ordered there. Then 
Capt. Mackenzie puts the brig at long shot, suhstantially 
out of the action, and this increases the difficulties of his 
case. What particular reason was there, if the Niagara 
loere at long-shot from the enemy, why an officer who com- 
manded small arm's men, and who was stationed on, or 
near the quarter deck of a ship of five hundred tons, should 
not approach the gangway, to receive a commander com- 
ing on board under the known circumstances of this case? 
One has only to examine most of Capt. Mackenzie's dis- 
tinctive facts, in this manner, to appreciate them at their 
true value. The fact of Perry's coming on board their 
brig at all, would be likely to attract the attention of all 
the officers, who were aware of that fact, even had the Ni- 
agara been in close action ^ but, putting her at long sliDt, 
where Capt. Mackenzie places her, it was the most natural 
thing, in the world, that the division officers should get as 
near the gangway as they could, without absolutely quitting 
their quarters, which might have brought them all quite 
within reach of Perry's "clarion voice." I state this 
merely to show the value of Mr. Mackenzie's reasoning — 
taking the facts as he states them — and not at all because 
I deem it necessary to the justification of the Niagara's 
officers. These last gentlemen meet the objection, as I 
have already shown, in the letter, itself, in which Perry 
and his biographer think they err, giving their statement 
simply as the results of their united observations ; some 
having seen one thing, some another. It is necessary to 
remember, however, that when they speak of the position 
of their brig, all these gentlemen, but Dr. Barton, testify ; 
for those on deck could not be iijnorant of that circuni- 
stance, the governing point of this controversy. 

But Capt. Mackenzie has not been content to limit his 
case to these rumors, vague and unfounded as they were. 
He has assumed far more than even Perry, under the angry 
feelings of 1818, and in his feeble charges, saw fit lo allege 
against Capt. Elliott. This it is which has compelled him 
to appear as supporting a subtilty as miserable as that of 
the " ENABLED," and has led him into so many contra- 
dictions and fallacies. In his own book, Capt. Mackenzie 



100 BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 

gives, himself, abundant proof that Perry never dreamed 
of denying that Capt. Elliott brought the Niagara into close 
action. He has done it at page 267, vol. 1, where he makes 
Perry say — " It was a matter of great doubt, when I began 
to reflect upon Capt. Elliott's conduct, to what to attri- 
bute his keeping so long out of the action." Here is an 
implied admission that he got into action, though late ; and 
that it is intended for dose action, is obvious from the fact 
that all Perry's complaints, charges, &:c, admit that the 
Niagara was in distant action, from a period very soon 
after the Lawrence herself was engaged. 

A striking fault of Mr. Mackenzie's is, the disposition 
to defer to every thing that Capt. Perry has seen fit to ad- 
vance, with the exception of those instances in which he 
has spoken well of Capt. Elliott. The latter he considers 
sufficiently answered by the circumstance that it was the 
pleasure of Capt. Perry to recall them ! This will prove 
to be better logic with the Perry connection, I apprehend, 
than with the rest of the human family. Capt. Perry, 
himself, has told us in his letter accompanying the charges, 
that an issue had been made up between his character and 
that of Capt Elliott's, else he should have remained silent ; 
and, by his own showing, he is incapacitated to be a witness* 
He has told different stories, and no man, after this, can 
stand before the world, and say I was wrong in all I said 
in his favor, and am now right in all I say against him. — 
In addition to this safe principle, we have the most nnan- 
swerable proofs that Capt. Perry was wrong in much— I 
may say in most — of that which he has advanced against 
Capt. Elliott. 

He affirms (in his charges) that only two men were hurt 
before he reached the Niagara ; and all, on Dr. Parsons's 
testimony and the " received opinions" of the fleet ; for 
there is no other evidence. I have shown what both are 
worth. His first specification, under his first charge, is 
an elaborate declaration that Capt. Elliott had been guilty 
of fraud in procuring certain officers to certify that he had 
held the conversation which has been mentioned, on coming 
on board the Niagara, when most of those officers were in 
a situation which must have prevented them from hearing 
- it. Now all this proceeds from reading the letter with a 



BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 101 

hostile feeling-, its own explanation of the contents being 
the result of the '* combined observations" of these officers, 
unanswerably proving the meaning, and of course fully 
meeting the charge. Besides, not a particle of evidence is 
produced to show that Capt. Elliott had any thing to do 
with the letter, and, as for the conversation, it is fully proved ! 
As I have pointed out the little value of these charges, one 
of which involves a physical impossibility, or contradiction, 
in my own biographical sketch of Perry, it is unnecessary 
to go over the points here. There is one circumstance, 
however, to which I will allude, as justice demands it, and 
it will throw much light on the state of Perry's judgment. 
The circumstance is this : — 

Perry, while excusing his previous commendations of 
Capt. Elliott, says in his letter accompanying the charges — 
" I would not allow myself to come to a decided opinion^ 
that an officer who had so handsomely conducted himself 
on a former occasion, as I then, in common with the pub- 
lic, had been led to suppose Capt. Elliott had, could possi- 
bly be guilty of cowardice, or treachery." The allusion is 
to a malicious calumny that was got up about this time, in 
the effort to crush Capt. Elliott, which affirmed that his 
half-brother commanded the Detroit, and the vessel was 
given up to him by collusion. This idle tale had a good 
deal of circulation in the naval circles, and my attention 
was drawn to it, while preparing the History. The ex- 
amination 1 then went into resuhed in the conviction that 
the whole story arose from the following facts. Capt. 
Elliott has, or had a half-brother living in Canada, who 
had once been in our army, but who marrying in the British 
territory, resigned, and established himself there. This 
gentleman, Capt. Elliott assures me was almost a stranger 
to him. A provincial naval officer, of the name of Rou- 
lette, married a sister of this Mr. Elliott's wife. He was 
an officer in the Detroit, (one of her lieutenants I believe) 
and when his brig was taken, he made himself known to 
his captor, with a view to reap the benefit of the connec- 
tion-if connection it can be called— in the way of treatment. 
The same officer was exchanged, and again captured on 
the 10th Sept. On this unfounded calumny, Perry has 
suffered his feelings so far to warp his sense of right, as to 
9* 



102 BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 

make the allusion I have quoted, without one particle of 
testimony, for none can be produced. There is no evidence 
to be found in support of this tale, while, on the other handj 
the affair of the capture of the two brigs has been thoroughly 
examined, and the proofs of Capt. Elliott's spirit, activity, 
promptitude and zeal on the occasion, are of the most con, 
elusive nature. 

Perry is not guiltless of disingenuousness, on another 
point. He went down in the Lawrence, Capt. Mackenzie 
says within three hundred and fifty yards of the enemy, 
backed his top-sail, and engaged. Here he lay, according 
to his own account, about two hours. I suppose he backed 
his top-sail about five hundred yards from the English line, 
where he lay, as mentioned. At all events, it is easy to 
demonstrate from the aflfidavit of the Lawrence's sailing- 
master, that he had some such distance as the last in his 
mind, or hi& afiidavit is worthless. It is possible the brig 
may have set down materially, after she was crippled, and 
while the wind stood. It is in proof that Elliott was about 
as near the enemy as the Lawrence had ever got, by drift 
or otherwise, when Perry came on board. This fact is 
denied by Messrs. Yarnall, Taylor, and Forrest, it is true, 
but their testimony is borne down by numbers, and by 
better witnesses, including Perry himself. 

The point, under this state of facts, is this. Perry,, in 
his specifications, speaks of his bearing up, &lq,. &.c, to 
bring the Niagara into close action, because he took her 
much nearer to the enemy than he found her; actually 
passing through their line. This fact is denied by no 
one ; and Capt. Elliott took the Somers much nearer than 
h-e had taken the Niagara, in the Jinale of the piece, when 
all closed upon the English vessels. But it is disingenuous 
to make a naked statement to this effect, and yet suppress 
the fact that Capt. Perry found the Niagara as near the 
enemy as he had then been, himself, that day. The bold 
allegation that " Perry bore doivn in the Niagara, and why 
did not Elliott do the same," is often made, but is easily 
answered. No one can say what Capt. Elliott might have 
done had there been time, and he did, allowing for the 
difference in time in closing, all that Perry had done, up 
to the moment when he left his brig — that is to say, he had 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 10^3 

got as near, or about as near to the enemy, as the Law- 
rence ever got. I say ^^aboiit as near" — for some swear 
nearer, and others about as near ; and I choose the safer 
expression. 

It is by confounding the accusations against, and the 
acts of, Capt. Elliott, in this manner, that I conceive so 
strong and wide-spread a prejudice has been created against 
him. To tell about a man's lying astern, with his top-sail 
aback, in an engagement, while others are in warm con- 
flict, is a very ad captandum sort of argument ; but, it 
falls to the ground if it be explained that the supposed de- 
linquent was in his station. It sounds ominous to bandy 
" received opinions" and " reports" in an array, but what 
are they, in this case, in the eyes of reason and justice] — 
In a word, insinuations are not proof, and, though Capt. 
Mackenzie may attach importance to wise aphorisms about 
" this or that arm-chest," coming from the mouth of a 
quarter-master, or quarter-gunner, or carpenter, he will ex- 
cuse me, if I look for the best evidence of which the case 
will admit. 

The charge against my history was, that it was written — 
meaning the part connected with Lake Erie — to glorify 
Capt. Elliott and to- lessen Capt. Perry in the public esti- 
mation. The answer was, that the points I have here 
discussed were controversial, and not necessary to, or fit 
for history. I chose, then, to follow the facts which be- 
longed properly to such a narrative, and which I conceived 
to be sufficiently established. The arbitrators justified this 
course One of those gentleman, however, dissented on 
the point that, having mentioned the. fact that Capt Perry 
commended Capt. Elliatt, in his official report, I ought to 
have mentioned his withdrawal of that commendation,, in 
his charges of 1818. This dissent strikes me as unfortu- 
nate, in more than one sense. In the first place, it icasin 
proof thsit the charges of 1818 had been withdrawn, and 
of course were cancelled. Then, they had never been 
acted on, and charges are not proof That Capt. Perry 
did commend, or " eulogize" his " second in command," 
is out of all question, and there I contend the historian had 
a right, and it was a duty, to look for his facts, until some 
public act, properly consummated and adjudged, authorized 



104 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 

him to look elsewhere. But, among the other absurdities 
into which the accusers of Capt. Elhott have fallen, is one 
of tlieir charges against me, in connection with this cir- 
cumstance. They say that, *' Perry accused Elhott, in 
1818, and you were bound to let the world know it." Now, 
these very gentry excuse Perry's report of 1813, on the 
ground that the truth would have destroyed Capt. Elliott, 
and that he acted from a " benevolent ambiguity." He, 
Perry, who was persuaded of Elliott's delinquency, might 
do this, and remain a saint ; vvhile 1, who, to say the very 
leasts believe that Elliott's delinquency admitted of many 
doubts, might not do the same thing, without being a sin- 
ner ! How was I to state this simple fact, and not leave a 
deep historical taint on the reputation of Capt. Elliott ? — 
Did they expect me to go into the subject at length 1 Well, 
if I had, it would have been somewhat in the mode it has 
been treated here ; would that have satisfied them 1 These 
moralists maintain, in substance, that Capt. Perry, with all 
the responsibihty of a judge, and of high public duties, 
might suppress a grave fact for the purposes of a " benevo- 
lent ambio^uity," but that the historian was bound to relate 
another fact, of doubtful truth, which existed in no recog- 
nized or authentic form, and which even if it had, was 
nothing but accusation, and stood unproved, merely be- 
cause the influence of the ** benevolent ambiguity" had 
ceased to act on Oliver Perry's benevolent feelings ! They 
may make them&elves the historical cats-paws of Com.. 
Perry, if they please ; but they must excuse me from imi- 
tating their example. 

Again — these persons say that Capt. Perry omitted to 
mention the four commanders of the schooners astern, be- 
cause Capt. Elliott had re{>orted ill of them. Here, then,, 
they blindly represent Capt. Perry as a man so weal<, or so 
wicked, as first to believe Capt. Elliott to have behaved so 
ill as to require a *' benevolent ambiguity" to cover his 
conduct, and, yet, to condemn others on his testimony ! 

It is time to close. 1 could fill a volume more, in expo- 
sing the fallacies, contradictions, absurdities and falsehoods 
of my opponents, but, if the public mind will receive truth,^ 
at all, on this subject, enough has already been shown. I 
have had no pleasure in exposing the parties who have 



BATTLE OP LAKE ERIE. 105 

assailed me. This is seen in the delay that has been per- 
mitted to occur. My feehngs, so far as I had any, when I 
sat down to write the history were ou the Perry side of the 
question. Examination has changed my opinion, and I 
liope it is not in my nature to become the instrument of 
circulating error, in deference to popular clamor however 
loud. Great and irreparable injustice has been done me, 
in connection with this matter; but infinitely greater, I 
firmly believe, has been done to Com. Elliott. I am far 
from subscribing to all the friends and advocates of this 
gentleman, even, have advanced in his behalf; but 1 think 
him a deeply injured man. That Capt. Perry substan- 
tially used the language imputed to him, when he reached 
the Niagara, I entertain no doubt, for it is proved by suffi- 
cient cumulative evidence; but I do not attach the meaning 
to it, that has been done by some. In my communications 
with Com. Elliott, the utmost frankness has been used. I 
have told him that I do not appear as his defender, but as 
my own ; and it is owing to the circumstance that his 
cause runs so much and so closely paralell to the truth, 
that he may derive some benefit from my course. The 
great mistake of the other side, has been a false appreciation 
of the power of truth, and an exaggerated notion of the 
deference of the common mind to persons and names. — 
The last is great, I will allow ; but it is not so strong as to 
veil the light from the eyes of the discerning and upright. 
The principles Avhich the Great Povver of the universe has 
established as from himself and of himself, will exist al- 
thouo'li IMr. Tristam Buries believes the Battle of Lake 
Erie to be a "part of the maritime affairs of Rhode Island ;" 
Dr. Duer fancies a little school boy latin will wrap up 
fallacies, misquotations and professional ignorance from 
the vulgar ken ; or Capt. Mackenzie is led away by the 
notion that all mankind are to view his hero, and his acts, 
with the same subservient senses and judgment as he sub- 
mits to himself 

J. FENIMORE COOPER. 



APPENDIX. 

Certain of our readers may wish to possess clearer 
notions of the leading incidents of the Battle of Lake Erie, 
as well as of the testimony given on the opposing sides of 
the controversy that has grown out of it, than can be ob- 
tained from the answers given in the body of this publica- 
tion. To aid them in their inquiries, the writer adds a few 
pages in the way of postscript. 

All the testimony that has been published, will be found, 
either in the body of the Life of Elliott, or in its appendix. 
If any other evidence has been given to the world, the 
writer cannot, at this moment, recall it. As, however, he 
has alluded to the evidence of a Lt. Packett, which does 
not appear in this appendix, it may be well to mention 
that it exists in manuscript, of which he possesses a copy, 
made by another person, for the sake of certifying to it, if 
necessary. Those who wish to get the testimony, will find 
that the following persons appear as witnesses, in one shape 
or another : viz. — 

Against Com. Elliott. For Com. Elliott. 

Commodore Perry, Lieutenants Smith, 

Lieutenants Yarnall, Edwards, 

l Forrest, Conklin, 

Stevens, Purser Magrath, 

Turner, Sail. Master Webster, 

Sailing Masters Taylor, Capt. Brevoort, 

Champlin, Midshipmen Nichols, 
Master's Mate Brownell, Pdge, 

Surgeon's Mate Parsons, Adams, 

Capt's. Clerk Breese. Cumminj^s, 

Montgomery, 
Surgeon Barton, 
Master's-Mate Tatem, 
Boatswain Berry. 

To these lists must be added the name of Lt. Packett, 
whose testimony fully corroborates the account of the battle 
as given by the writer. From the list of witnesses against 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 107 

Capt Elliott must be struck the names of Com. Perry and 
Lt. Forrest ; the first, because he admits himself, that an 
issue had been made up affecting his own character, and 
because he also admits that so long as this issue was not 
made up, he had been content to give a different account 
of the matter ; the last because he flatly contradicts his 
adverse testimony, under oath. The testimony of Com. 
Turner, too, will be found to sustain the writer, and to con- 
tradict Capt. Mackenzie, as he substantially avers that 
Com. Elliott, came into close action, though in his judg- 
ment, too late. The first is a fact ; the last, an opinion. 
Of the opinion, the reader may judge by reading Ferry's 
own account of his order of battle, and his injunction on 
his commanders to keep the line, as well as the tenor of the 
only signal he made from the Lawrence, during the en- 
gagement, as QUOTED from the signal book, hy his oum 
witnesses. 

The reader will discover a great deal of contradiction in 
the testimony. Some of it cannot be accounted for unless 
it be by mistaken opinion. A good deal of it, however, 
may be explained. Thus Mr. Brownell says : — " The 
Lawrence went gallantly into close action, but the Niagara 
continued to keep at a much greater distance astern than 
when the action commenced.'''' At the first blush, this is 
contradictory, per se, and it leaves the clear inference that 
the Niagara must have turned round, and receded from the 
enemy. It is, hoM ever, fair to presume that Mr. Brownell 
meant neither the contradiction nor tiie charge that the Ni- 
agara ran away. '■'■Continuing to keep at a much greater 
distance'''' is so palpable a contradictien, as to render it 
probable that someihing was meant, that was not express- 
ed. The writer supposes Mr. Brownell meant to say that 
the Niagara continued, for some period in his own mind, at 
a greater distance from the Lawrence, than ahe was when 
the firing commenced. This fact is true ; and it is ac- 
counted for by the circumstance tliat the Lawrence left the 
Caledonia, and that the Niagara was ordered to remain 
astern of the Caledonia. 

Again : — Mr. Champlin has a seeming contradiction, 
also. It has been seen that this witness, while he says 
Capt. Elliott went to windward of the Lawrence, leaving 



103 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 

the latter exposed to the enemy's fire, does not say he ivcnt 
to windward of his otcn schooner^ leaving the just inference 
that he went to leeward of the Scorpion, and was, of course, 
nearer to the enemy than his own schooner, which all ad- 
mit was in close action. In another part of his affidavit, 
he says: — " It was the opinion of the officers and men of 
the squadron, (clearly a mistake, by the way, as more 
testify in Capt. Elliott's favor, than testify against him !) — 
that Capt. Elliott did not do his duty in the action on that 
day, and that had his conduct been that of a brave man, 
there is no possible reason can be given why his vessel 
should not have been brousrht into close action with the 
British squadron, hefore Com. Perry went on hoard her^ 
The words italicised would give reason to suppose that 
Mr. Champlin means that the Niagara was not in close 
action when Perry reached her; or as near to the enemy as 
he was himself; which would be substantially contradicting 
Perry himself, contradicting Mr. Turner unequivocally, 
directly contradicting nearly every witness belonging to the 
Niagara, and contradicting the just inferences that are to be 
drawn from the other part of his own testimony mentioned. 
It is probable that by the close action alluded to, in this 
sentence, the witness meant the close action into which 
Perry carried the Niagara, after Capt. Elliott left her, which 
was certainly much nearer to the enemy than she was 
when he got on board her ; but which was also much 
nearer, than he got, himself, in the Lawrence. 

The testimony may be fairly explained, in this way, in 
a great many places. Thus Mr. Montgomery, one of Capt. 
Elliott's witnesses, and a man of character, says, in answer 
to a question before the Court of Inquiry : — "Yes ; before 
the Lawrence was disabled, she (the Charlotte is meant) 
bore up and ran foul of the Detroit, on th.it ship's lee 
quarter." As the Charlotte did run foul of the Detroit at 
a later period of the action, and did 7iot before the Law- 
rence was disabled, this answer has been cited as a proof 
of defective memory, and consequently of defective testi- 
mony on the part of this witness. But the matter is easily 
explained. When the Charlotte left her station in the line 
and closed with the Detroit, she fell to leeward of her con- 
sorts, and being quite close to the Detroit, she appeared to 



UATTF-E OP LAKE ERIE. 109 

many in the American vessels to be foul of the latter ship. 

These instances are named, to put the reader on his 
guard, as much that appears contradictory, or untrue, in 
the testimony, may be very fairly cleared up, on an intel- 
ligent and impartial investigation. Still there are direct 
contradictions that will admit of explanation on no other 
ground than errors of judgment, opinions warped by much 
discussion and prejudice, or positive perjury. Of the fn-st, 
there is a great deal connected with the manner in which 
Perry's order of battle shoukl be construed ; of the second, 
there is even more, as is evident from the tenor of many of 
the affidavits of tliose who testify against Capt. Elhott, the 
witnesses going out of their way to relate rumors, and im- 
material facts that they think will tell, thus lessening their 
own credibility rather than injuring the party they assail ; 
of the last, the writer sees no reason for suspecting any. 

An attempt was made before the arbitrators, in 1842, to 
elevate the personal characters of the Perry witnesses, at 
the expense of the Elliott witnesses. Nothing is more cer- 
tain than the fact tiiat the testimony of one honest and in- 
telligent man, is worth more than the testimony of a dozen 
fools or knaves, but there is no reason to believe there was 
any superiority of character or intelligence, in favor of the 
witnesses who testifv against Com. Elliott. Judoino- from 
the testimony^ on its face, most clear headed persons 
would thinli, the writer is persuaded, that the Elliott testi- 
mony, as a whole, comes from the clearest minds and the 
least prejudiced intentions. As for professional character, 
a point that was much insisted on, the writer is not aware 
of any particular advantage enjoyed by the side of Com. 
Perry. It is true, that three of his witnesses, Messrs. 
Turner, Stevens, and Taylor have risen to be post captains, 
and the first now wears a broad pennant ; but this is entirely 
owing to accident, their equals in rank, on the other side 
of the question, having died, with good characters, as lieu- 
tenants. Had Messrs. Smith, Edwards, Webster, &c. lived 
a few years Ioniser, they would have been captains too.-— 
The late Capt. Stevens was a good officer, beyond a doubt, 
and he proved himself a brave man on other occasions ; 
but so did several of the Elliott witnesses. Com. Turner 
is a good officer, and a respectable and highly honorable 



10 



/ 



no BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 

and honest man ; but he contradicts, in effect, Capt. Mack- 
enzie and all that clique. His condemnation of Com. El- 
liott, as connected with the battle, is purely a matter of 
opinion. He evidently thinks Elliott ought to have put a 
different construction on the order of battle, wherein the 
writer thinks he is manifestly wrong. 

It is a failing of the other side to extol all their * geese as 
swans ' While the history was in progress, various at- 
tempts were made to convince the writer of the superiority 
of the Perry witnesses, and of their greater claims to credi- 
bility. One of them, in particular, was paraded before him 
as a man of singular claims to respect. The testimony of 
this witness was far from telling in his favor, and the writer 
took the trouble to enquire into his character, of different 
impartial persons — of officers, indeed, who are unfriendly 
to Com Elliott — and the answer was uniform — the witness 
was believed to be one of the weakest men in the navy ! 

As respects the witnesses, the writer has treated them 
all as entitled to credit, except when they are incapacitated 
by their own showing. He knows that Com. Elliott's 
witnesses are the best, on legal principles ; and he believes 
they are much the best as a whole, on the score of intelli- 
gence and impartiality. To analyze all the testimony, how- 
ever, and to prove this, would require a book of several 
hundred pages. 

The entire theory of the battle, is as follows: — The two 
squadrons were formed, as is exhibited in the diagram on 
the opposite page. This diagram shows the Lavvi-ence, 
No. 3, leaving the Caledonia, JNo. 4, and the Niagara, No. 
5, in her station astern of the latter. The writer conceives 
that the witnesses against Capt. Elliott think that officer 
ought to have passed the Caledonia, immediately, without 
regard to the injunction to keep the line, inasmuch as the 
Lawrence was leading ahead, and was likely to be exposed 
to a combined fire, only partially assisted. The answer to 
this opinion is this : The order to preserve the line was 
peremptory ; the injuries received by the Lawrence were 
received gradually, and were better Known to her own 
commander, than to the commander of the Niagara, while 
the former had the authority to call the latter to his relief, 
a course the latter could not take without disobeying 



% 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 



Ill 



•1 
8 






C 

w 



•2 ^.= - 

- rt to-— K 

O »- >-i 

rs re ii 



re "^ O 



u «- a, 



.2^ 

s. C3 .. 

< J O 2 c» a. E-i H 
I Tt ri 'S" ir: ■-£ t-- dbsi 



a; 



^f 



ft u 


ippewa, 
Iroii, 
nter, 

eeu Charl 
dy Prevos 
tie Belt. 


2 s 


J5 (» s = es.r; 




OOffiC^JJ 



c^ 



O 

< 

Pi 

< 



r^ 5< cc ■<»' ir: « 

It 



'-'> 



.« 



<-^ 



Vf 



:fl 



^5 







•H be bc-^:^ 

C DC 
Is i= ^J3 
oi tr CO 

'>^ '— r* S 

s> •? 

— - «a 






31 



o 2 o rt 
.2— a « 



,-::iS tucC 



o 
o 



C/2 



«* ^ -, "^^ ^ 

• a; J *^ — . 

S OJ O) (t 03 
"O ^ S -S ^ 

^ "^ a, ■« ♦- 

f o « •£ o 
Sit' a ~ 

•-3 2 _^ bP 

« "" o'^'K 

C5_X C O 2 

^e: § 'J a 



<u 



a'«^ >-a 



CS--! 



03. 



V SB 



or — 

.2^ 



- *- 03 •;: 
&<S2 



/ 



112 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 

orders; it was as much the duty of Perry to change his 
own order of battle, if circumstances required, as it was of 
Elhott to respect it, until circumstances imperiously de- 
manded an exercise of his own judgment. When this con- 
tingency occurred Capt. Elliott did assume the responsi- 
bility of disobeying the order of battle, and passed his 
second ahead, as is seen in diagram No. % 

In this diagram, the Niagara has passed the Caledonia, 
without orders, and is closing in the wake of the Lawrence. 
The reader will find this fact authenticated by the joint 
letter of the ward-room officers of the Niagara, page 124, 
Life of j£lliott ; by Mr. Magralh in a letter written by him- 
self, shortly after the battle, page 1*28 ; by Messrs. Webster, 
Montgomery, Adams, Tatem, Cummings, Nichols, Bre- 
voort and Berry ; and, it agrees with the facts given by 
Messrs. Packett, and Turner, while it is directly contj'a- 
dicted, the writer believes, by no body. 

It is true that a few of Capt. Perry's witnesses speak of 
the Caledonia's going down with the Lawrence, while they 
s=iy that the Niagara was a long distance astern, which 
would seem to contradict tbe circumstance that the Niagara 
was close to the Caledonia, until she passed her. ThiSj 
then, is a question of fact, to be settled by the weight of 
testimony. 

Of the Perry witnesses, Messrs. Stevens, Champlin, 
Breese, and Taylor say, in one form or another, that the 
Caledonia went down with the Lawrence, leaving the Ni- 
an-ara astern and to windward : while Messrs. Turner, Yar- 
nail, Forrest and Brownell say nothing on the point, at 
all. On the other hand, Messrs. Smith, Edwards, Web- 
ster, IMagrath, Brevoort, Adams, Cummings, Tatem, Mont- 
gomery, and Nichols, in some form or other, contradict 
them altogether. Now, the officers of the Niagara and the 
Caledonia were the best witnesses as to the relative posi- 
tions of their two brigs — they certainly knew best, whether 
they were, or were not, near each other, and while all the 
officers of the former, who were on deck, agree in saying 
they ivere^ until tiie Niagara passed, none of the officers of 
the Caledonia deny it ! But v/e have conclusive proof 
that the Niagara must have been near the Caledonia, and, 
wfTC the latter near the Latvrence^ the former must have 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 



113 



/ 






o 

< 
Pi 





wj 







£ 2 






«a - — ■ 









fc, -O JO (U s * CU 

?— cs S i« bt-- 
ed te — < o o •-! !-< 



>-5 i-^'ffic^-v'ictct^QOo^ 



a> 



o • 



=0 ffi -w ^ >- a. ^ 

• ^ OJ S 3 (S.ti 

< coo's J J 

1-1* c* T^' CO »o ">i3 




OS 



bo 

a 



_r., S~ a-273 



CS « J^ 
^. fc. Jr o 



' 71 c 



^ es "* 
a I « 

OJ ^ « 









s 
;-a a 



-a a-T- 






^ c i: H _, a 

-" rt ^ S oj 

-a „ S ^ 5 » 

p*^ r-< -^ _ eg 



cd c^ 



•* ^ ? -, w eS 



be ^---a 







J2 

<u 



C.2 






5 s S 

&• S *-~ 3 » 
cs - *- «-S 

-^ rt « «u = 5: ® 

o a ■;: 1-^ -^ (V, o 

£ =^-a" -32 



C3 QJ 

a aj 






J3 2 



a a 3j t^ w 

<» -j rt «^ 

c a 2 t^ ^"^ =* 

S ci a cc ^.2 ?„ 

fci 7. 3 .r I. bo 

^ a t: =3 _- X S 

13 -— 3 ■- -= ^ 
03 * C c ~ -^ 

'^Q c es u TO 



e 



5 iS oJ 



bo 

a. ~ a 
— 1 o 

a 



S-.S 



be j2 o 



JTS ca k2 :; 



y o 



3— (t 3J " 



^ u «j J- a a? 
re ii ^ , ~ fiS 
Curt *jr*<, +j 



10^ 



114 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 

been near her too. It is admitted all round that Capt. 
Elliott hailed the Caledonia, ordering; Mr. Turner to bear 
up, and let the Niagara pass. This was probably an hour, 
or more, after the tiring commenced. No one denies the 
fact, it being actually one of the out-door charges against 
Capt. Elliott that he passed to windward of the Caledonia, 
instead of bearing up himself, and going to leeward. Wit- 
nesses to this fact were actually examined before the arbi- 
trators, in 1842 ! In this manner does truth leak out 
through misrepresentation and prejudice. If Capt. Elliott 
were so near the Caledonia^ and yet so far astern^ it follows 
that the Caledonia did not go down with the Laivrence^ 
and the Perry witnesses in all that relates to this fact, are 
in a palpable error. That the Caledonia early engaged, 
is true, for she had two long twenty fours, and could fight 
them at a distance even greater than that at which the 
Niagara was represented by Perry, himself, in his charges 
to be, although that distance exceeds the distance of his 
own witnesses by nearly one half. The truth is, beyond 
a doubt,that the Lawrence reached ahead of the Caledonia, 
the latter trying all she could to close, but was kept 
astern by her dull sailing and the lightness of the wind, it 
falling nearly calm as soon as the firing became heavy. 

Diagram No 3 represents the movement which occurred 
at the close of the action Here the wind has freshened, 
the Niagara has passed the Lawrence, (then setting astern 
and to leeward) to windward of her, while the Caledonia 
follows to leeward. When Mr. Turner bore up to let the 
Niagara pass ahead, he continued fanning down upon the 
enemy, using his pivot guns, until he got nearer to the rear 
of the British line than the Lawrence had ever been, and 
in following to the southward and westward he went inside 
of that brig. This circumstance may also explain much 
of the testimony, some of the witnesses making it a grave 
charge that the Niagara passed the Lawrence to windward.. 
The fact is of no moment, as the act of passing could oc- 
cupy but an instant of time, while it was important to Capt. 
Elliott to keep to windward of the enemy^s heaviest vessels, 
and the Lawrence having a stern and leeward set might 
have embarrassed him It is true Capt. Perry subsequently 
cut the British line, and passed to leeward ; but it was 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 



115 



ft 0-— !*■::=* = >- b/>r-. 

^ -i ©J C^ 'T *^ to ^ M 0» 



O J> 






a.5 2 






»-5 = S.?"^ 






o 

< 
o 







^ 









d d 






&= =i &- S 

^» -O '^ -^ S 1^ 

c 5 M a S j= P" 

k' JS 5=0 S 3 *" ^ 
o c 2 -i <u^ 



'3£:^sy 3 5-sS 



w * — ^ -5 

= "-'? -___ - — - 

.£ c3 ■-■r 2? -» * *^ ^ o) -— r; -u o 
^= £-5 bo^g.- = ^ 2 o_^-„ 

53C3 -gcji^csacs--— >-S 
"■ ■ ~ ^ - « " C <S „> « ^ M o 






= = 2 - 5 






r-l -. .^ — _ nn » ^ Ml M o 



, O wi 



^'''' =^ to 



-I -S-r^ = - <u S =3 o " S Y 



■2 = 53 w-Tj «^ g-= s s-;S'^ 

" " vl .■-_ OJ "i ^ >^S-^ =■ ti 






o c — 




-4- ., S ei ■- = ?; s a.^ — i Z J - 

- " OJ 5 o 

< 4) <u 



- sxit ^y^ :^ bo 



■ — o " "^ ^ ^ 



^•5 b"^ c- S"*'- c-^ Si » ^ 
g--2^b^|=Zp2"5^i--§ 



;"u?i?'^ a ¥ P 






"S-c S ? S "- " 



SJ2 S' 






ho c 



•^- 5-r3"= 



£ . - s ^ -^ -'^ 2 ''"^ 



•a>-3 -^ 

."^ a> 5 w 



w — " — — ^"r aif^ M r- 

E-' 2 ^S 3-£ 5^f^3 <u S ^S o ba 



bj3 



116 BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 

after the two English ships had got foul of each other, and 
thus permitted him to rake them both, at the same time. — 
There is no question that Perry's movement, at this period 
of the action, was prompt, gallant, and officer-like; but it is 
sino-ularily unfair to charge another with not having done 
the same thing, when the contingency which produced it, 
had not occurred, while it was in his power to execute the 
same manceuvre. 

All the misconception of the public in this matter, has 
proceeded from mystifications, which, in their turn, have 
arisen from mistal^ en views, on the part of the witnesses, 
and narrow prejudices. The facts that the Niagara was 
astern, while the Lawrence was suffering, and that Capt. 
Perry went closer with that brig, when he got on board of 
her, than she had been taken by Capt. Elliott, were very 
liable to misconception. They are explained, however, 
when it is known that Elliott was in a station he was en- 
joined to keep, while astern, and that he went as near, after 
passing the Lawrence, as Perry, himself, had gone in his 
own brig. New circumstences occurred in the close of the 
affair, that called for new manoeuvres. These circum- 
stances Perry nobly improved ; but Capt. Elliott was not 
idle at the same time, coming much nearer in the Somers, 
than Perry had come in the Lawrence. 

The reader who will examine the evidence, will find 
that these views are accurate. He must, however, reject 
" reports," " received opinions of the fleet" that are con- 
tradicted by the weight of testimony, and " rumors" about 
two men wounded. When a witness, of character, like Lt. 
Webster, sicears thai two men were killed in his division, 
he must not discredit him, on the ground that Capt. Mack- 
enzie has one of his extraordinary theories, which shows 
that the witness must be mistaUen ; or on " rumor'''' arising 
not fjom any contradictions of a natural law, or unavoid- 
able inference from premises fairly stated, but because 
"rumor" itself tells a different story ! 

It is often urged to the writer that most of the officers 
of the navy are of opinions against Com. Elliott's conduct 
in the Battle of Lake Erie. This is probably true; it 
certainly 's among the writer's ai(j(iaintanci;s But what 
is an opinion worth, when the party is ignorant of facts 'J — 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE. 117 

Clamor and assertion have been the substitutes of evidence 
in this case, and the writer has never yet met with five offi- 
cers in tlie navy, let them be of what rank they might-those 
who were in the battle excepted — who appeared to him to 
have ever read more than the evidence on one side. Be- 
sides, the writer, as a historian, is responsible only for his 
own opinions. He knows how difficult it is to obtain truth, 
and never has pretended that his work does not contain 
mistakes — all histories do — but he feels confident that, in 
his views of the Battle of Lake Erie, the weight of evi- 
dence, the true nautical view of ^the question, and the 
facts, make out a case far more in favor of Com. Elliott, 
than in favor of his assailants. 



THE END. 



ERRATA. 

This pamphlet having been printed under somewhat unfavorable 
circumstances, more errors of the press are to be found in it, than is 
usual. The typographical errors will be left to the intelligence of the 
reader, except in cases where they affect the sense, but it is necessary 
to note most of the mistakes in words. 

Page 7, 5th line from bottom, "appears" should read " appear." 
" 1'2, 30th line from top, for "circumstance" read " circum^ 

stances." 
" 14. It was intended, by saying that "the Scorpion had one 
twenty-four," merely to point out the error of Mr. Burges, 
who says she had tico thirty-twos. She had one twenty- 
four, and a thirty-two pound carronade, according to the 
writer's information. 
" 15, 6th line, for " commanders," read " commodore." 
" 18, 25th line, for the "a" read "d." 
" 21, 19th line, for "Lawrence," read " Niagara." 
" 29, 18th line, for "calibres of the guns is," read "are." 
" 32, 25th line, for " have," read "has." 
" 42, 6th line, for "second," read "third." 
" 55. 2d line from bottom, for "positions," read "position." 
" 56, 13th line, for "was," read "wore." 
'•• 57, 18th line, for "when," read "in." 

" 67, 6th line, in part of the edition, "Barton's" is printed for 
( "Parsons." 

" 16, 8th line from bottom, for "Porcupine, ".read "Scorpion." 

In saying that his History has been excluded from the public school 
libraries, so far as rested with those who possessed the power of 
recommendation, while Capt. Mackenzie's Biography of Perry haa 
been admitted, the writer had no intention to refer to any now in au- 
thorit3% in the Slate Government, or to any acts since the decision of 
the arbitration in his favor, in the spring of 1842. 

In speaking of the loss of the Niagara, it is said it was comparativehj 
greater than that of any other vessel in the war of 1812, the Lawrence 
and Essex excepted. Perhaps to these two last ships, the Saratoga 
ou"-ht to be added. Two accounts of the loss of the Niagara have 
been given; that of the official report, and that of her own surgeon. 
On the part of Com. Elliott, it is affirmed that the returns on which 
Perry reported were given in by Dr. Parsons, and that he endeavored 
to lessen the loss of this brig, under the influence of the feeling he so 
early manifested. Dr. Barton affirms that five men were killed, 
whereas the official report puts this number at two. The following 
circumstances render it probable that Dr. Barton was right. This 
gentleman speaks of a man who was mortally wounded in a ham- 
mock before his own eyes. Add this man to the two, sworn to by Mr. 
Webster, as killed in his division before Capt. Perry reached the Ni- 
agara, and we get more than are contained in the official report. Dr. 
Barton, moreover, the permanant medical officer of the Niagara,would 
be more apt to get the facts, from a scattered crew, in the long run, than 
Dr. Parsons, whose account, even supposing him uninfluenced by 
feeling, as he clearly was not by his own showing, was made out in 
time for a report written three days after the action. 



mr- — -^zinzzzm 



THE 



BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE, 



OR 



ANSWERS 



TO 



MESSRS. BURGES, DUER, AND MACKENZIE. 



BY J. FENIMORE COOPER, 



COOPERSTOWN : 

U , Sz E . P H 1 N N E Y 



1 643. 



M PRICE 25^ENT S. "W 



W 73 I 



••» 












% 










^'^^<^- 




'^ ^^ 



©^Jl** 











o 






© < 









'- '%.,.'( 




*>*-. ^"^ o 



"oy 




* 4 



o 






«^ 



,-V* 



1^" 








*^^'^ 











^ov^^ - 








* i 









• H e 








^ 



t • 





"• "^^ 



.4< 



